Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Claims that the referendum was "illegal"

I copy edited the sentence on Argentina to simply state that Argentina rejected the referendum. To state in Wikipedia's voice that Kirchner stated the referendum was illegal under international law does not comply with WP:NPOV. If that were the case, and it isn't, a neutral commentator's comment would be needed and we would need to reflect the range of opinions in the literature. This was a classic example of abusing the use of quotes to make a political POV statement in a wikipedia article. That the referendum was reject by Argentina is a fact, that Argentina claims it was illegal is a rather dubious opinion, which should not be presented as fact. Moreover simply including it as a quote is abuse of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to insert political statements into wikipedia's articles. I've removed it again and invite the editor responsible for inserting it to follow WP:BRD and discuss whether it should be included. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be illegal under domestic Argentine law that is neither applicable in the Falklands nor part of International Law. The referendum deals with the relationship between the Falklands and the UK, which as pointed out by the European Commission spokesman is an EU member state internal affair. Apcbg (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to state Argentinians position, but also to make clear it is their opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum as stated in the source. I think it's an important piece of information to mention and it is clearly stated that is Argentina's opinion. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No one has seen fit to add any comment by a British political leader on the significance of the referendum. Why then is there an imperative to include a claim made without basis from an Argentine leader?. Wikipedia deals in facts not opinions. That you think it important to state a claim made by a politician does not form a sustainable reason for adding it. Its simply WP:SOAPBOXing. We explain it was rejected that is sufficient. This merits no more than a simple summary of the facts, nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wee, it is not a "claim without a basis", it is the reason why said country decided to dismiss the referendum. It also is not just "the claim from an Argentine leader" or "a claim by a politician", it is the position of the whole political body of Argentina represented by its president and both the Congress ([1][2][3][4]) and the Senate ([5][6][7])

As I explained to you over at the Falkland Islands article (where you also removed this fact): it is important to note that Argentina regarded the referendum as illegal because: 1- it is an indisputable fact and 2- it improves the article providing sourced and relevant information. This is the third time you remove this fact from the article and I'd appreciate if you could please self rv (also accusations of "soapboxing" are not helpful) Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No I will not self-revert. You stated an opinion not a fact.

What principle in law was cited? Answer: None. Ergo it was a statement made without foundation. Equally it is simply your opinion that it is important.

You ignore the very basic point no one feels a need to refer to any statement made by British leaders, or that we simply need to state the very basic facts in a summary. I would appreciate if for once you would actually address a point made to you, rather than ignoring it. Simply asserting it to be my opinion doesn't make it go away. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again Wee: that statement mentions the reason Argentina dismissed the referendum. That Argentina considers the referendum "illegal" is an indisputable fact and an addition of encyclopedic value to the article. Your WP:OR about "principles of law" and it being "made without foundation" is irrelevant as you well know. You are once again attempting to obscure relevant and properly sourced information from an article and once again I'll ask you to please self rv. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My point which was very simple and has not been addressed. No one has seen fit to include statements by British politicians asserting the referendum to be legal, or any comment on the great significance of the result. That Argentina rejected the referendum is a fact, that it asserts it to be illegal is an opinion. That it has provided no basis is largely irrelevant, this was a tangential point I made. Address the central issue please.

Time and again, we see the same behaviour. You seize on an irrelevant tangential point and go on and on about it. You simply restate your own personal opinion ad nauseum. Its boring, irritating and will lead nowhere.

I have no more desire to see a load of quotes from British politicians on the great significance of the referendum, than I do wish to see the anticipated statements of outrage from Argentine politicians.

We should a summary that should be no more that a simple assertion of the facts and not be inserting political opinions of either persuasion into the article. I invite this point to be addressed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And yet once again: "that it asserts it to be illegal is an opinion", no Wee it is a fact that Argentina considers the referendum illegal. I'd urge you to go through the refs I provided to check this ([8][9][10][11][12][13][14]) You are removing properly sourced and encyclopedic information from an article (yet again) to make a WP:POINT and that is not acceptable. So here it goes once again: please be reasonable and bring back the statement you removed 3 times from this article, just like you removed it 3 times from the Falkland Islands article.

Also, please don't engage in WP:PAs Wee. We can discuss this reasonably without having to resort to any kind of accusations. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted on another page already. The deliberate use of a quote assering an opinion that it is "illegal" is to deliberately abuse the use of quotes to make an overtly political point by using negative language. This is contrary to WP:NPOV.

The actual reason Argentina rejects the referendum is that it refuses to recognise any right of the people of the Falkland Islands to have a say in their own future. The deliberate use of a negative term is designed to mislead rather than inform our readers and I reject the use of such language for that reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is saying we should use quote marks. That Argentina rejected the referendum as illegal is an indisputable fact Wee, as shown by the refs I presented. Argentina also considers that the islanders have no say in the issue, but this is in addition to that fact not the reason for the rejection. You are proposing we obscure a relevant and properly sourced fact because you consider it negative, this is not acceptable Wee.

As I proposed in that other article, I say we use the term "no legal value" instead of "illegal" if it is that term that upsets you (even though that is not a valid reason to keep information of encyclopedic value out of an article) Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, again the reason why Argentina rejects the referendum is that it refuses to recognise the islanders have any say. I am proposing that we simply state that and do not obscure it by selecting phrases for their political overtures. It is very much a disputable fact that it is "illegal", the British Government states it is a legitimate expression of self-determination. Again I am not arguing to put that statement in, simply to state the facts and not overtly political statements of opinion. Please do try and address the point. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, once again let's try to make the point get across. "the reason why Argentina rejects the referendum is that it refuses to recognise the islanders have any say", can you source this Wee? I can thoroughly source that the reason Argentina rejects the referendum is because it considers it has no legal value (ie: it considers it illegal): [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Can you source that the reason Argentina dismissed the referendum is expressly because of what you say? What you might think about this fact is irrelevant and you know it. This is a fact that can be thoroughly sourced and as such should be included in the section. Can you understand the difference between a fact and your own opinion Wee? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

".....the Islanders are not part of the sovereignty dispute since the sovereignty claims are over the territory and not them.” Argentina Ambassador to London (Alicia Castro) dismisses referendum. Moriori (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Right at the beginning of that article the reason is stated: "Argentina's ambassador to London Alicia Castro dismissed the referendum held by Malvinas Islanders saying it is “a ploy that has no legal value.”" (emphasis added) This is the official position of Argentina and the reason for the dismissal (as can be seen in all the refs I provided above). Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cherry picking personified. See WP:Balance. It seems you want to select a quote from the ambassador's comments but ignore another which is equally significant, namely "...the Islanders are not part of the sovereignty dispute...". Moriori (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the basic statement is that the islanders don't have any right to have their say, everything else is just window dressing. This is the reason for the dismissal and the selective quoting to offer a different explanation is seriously misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Moriori, have you checked the refs I presented above? At least the titles of pretty much all of them? [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] The sources all state that the referendum was dismissed as illegal either by Argentina as a whole or by some of its politics separately. How do you justify picking that specific line you mention over any other in that article? How about the lines "..It was neither organized nor approved by the United Nations.." or "only represents the opinion of some 1,600 British citizens against the millions and millions of people that recognizes Argentina’s sovereignty over the Malvinas". How do those lines differ from the one you picked? How is that not "cherry picking"?

Furthermore I absolutely do not propose to ignore the line you mentioned. Quite the opposite in fact, I believe it should be mentioned that Argentina considers it illegal (as the reason for the dismissal) and also what you mention here if you believe it to be important. It is Wee the one who proposes we obscure information from the article, not me. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is what's in place now:

• Argentina has rejected the referendum.

and this is my proposal:

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

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I reject that text as non-neutral and simply restating the same flawed argument. None of the selected quotes you suggest would merit inclusion, all are further examples of WP:CHERRY to present a biased view.

To summarise, your text is not suitable as you cherry picked a quote to obscure the reason. We do not include quotes from British leaders asserting it to be legal, neither should we include quotes from Argentine leaders asserting the opposite, we should simply state the facts relevant to an encyclopedia. Nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, it isn't a platform to advocate a particular POV, it presents a WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wee, those lines were presented to demonstrate that picking any of them is just as "cherry picking" as selecting solely the one proposed above. I did not cherry pick a quote Wee, it is either the title of the refs I present regarding Argentina's position as a country ([32][33][34][35]), some of its politicians ([36][37][38][39]) and even foreign (ie: non Argentinian) newspapers: [40][41][42]. The German news media Deutsche Welle says explicitly: "The Argentine government considers the referendum illegal and does not recognize it, based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization."[43] It is hard to be any more clear than that. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, a discussion, involves point and counter point with the aim of achieving a consensus.

You appear to think its state a position, ignore the counter point, restate the position and repeat till you bludgeon everyone into giving up and letting you have your way.

You haven't addressed one single point, you simply restate the same position ad nauseum, as far as I can see it the discussion is over. I'm not going to engage in a war of attrition with you, I've better things to do. Come back when you can formulate a cogent argument. I refer you to the previous statement as to why I reject what you propose. I have no desire to see this article hijacked into a series of guttoral grunts from politicians exercising their ignorance. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What "counterpoint" would you like me to present other than the endless amount of sources backing the edit I propose Wee? The reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum is clear, factual and fully sourced: it considers it illegal. Your arguments for leaving this relevant piece of information out have so far been: "not NPOV", "soapboxing", "no mention of British politicians", "abuse of quotes", "cherry picking" and finally your lack of "desire to see this article hijacked into a series of guttoral grunts from politicians exercising their ignorance". See a pattern of moving the goalposts here Wee?

I'll await Moriori's comment on my proposed text and the sources I've presented. If you are not interested in working to reach an agreement you are of course free to stop commenting when you wish. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO - see WP:LASTWORD. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources for a reverted statement

An editor deleted the following statement, which I had added to the list of Argentine claims, on the grounds of "not neutral source for this claim":

That the UN ratified this inapplicability of self-determination when the Assembly rejected proposals to condition sovereignty on the wishes of the islanders.

The sentence contains two assertions: 1) That the UN Assembly rejected proposals. 2) That Argentina interprets this as a ratification of the inapplicability of self-determination.

The source I gave was authored by the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As such, it supports assertion number 2. It is clear from the introduction of the list (i.e., "Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims") that these are nothing more than alleged facts; thus I considered it redundant to add something like "According to Argentina", yet I'm OK with including it if considered necessary.

Regarding assertion number 1, I see that my edit left room to interpretation. It was not clear if it was being presented as an allegation or fact. So, just in case someone interprets the latter, let's source it.

It well-established that, since 1965, Britain approaches the UN with the understanding that the wishes of the islanders are paramount, yet that has failed to be included in resolutions by the Assembly. As a detailed source for this general case we can consult Alejandro Schwed, "Territorial Claims as a Limitation to the Right of Self-Determination in the Context of the Falkland Islands Dispute", Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 6 Issue 3, (1982), pp. 443-471 and, for a synthetic one, Francis Toase's "The United Nations Security Resolution 502", in The Falklands Conflict 20 Years On, Cass, NY, (2005), p. 162: "[O]ne might criticise the UN for neglecting the islanders’ right to self-determination, to determine for themselves which government they wished to live under: after all, respect for the aspirations of the inhabitants of non-self-governing territories is enshrined in the UN Charter and has underlain decades of decolonisation."

For a noteworthy instance of rejection, we can see the 1985 Yearbook of the United Nations, p. 1135, where the UN records the rejection after a vote by the Assembly of two amendments introduced by the UK.

For another noteworthy instance, there's Virginia Gamba, The Falklands/Malvinas War: Model for North–South Crisis Prevention, Taylor & Francis (1987), p. 88, where, talking about Resolution 2065/XX of the General Assembly in 1965 (i.e., the one that opened the negotiation process), the author says "The original British diplomatic position, insisting on either self-determination or Article 73 of the United Nations Charter, was rejected by the General Assembly". In a paper published by Boston Law College titled "Sovereignty and Decolonization of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands", Adrian Hope refers to this case when discussing Resolution 2065/XX: 'Great Britain invoked the principle of self-determination and argued that it should be applied for the benefit of the British subjects which inhabited the Islands and claimed that decolonization should be brought about in accordance with the "wishes" of those inhabitants as freely expressed by them.', p. 439. Such position didn't make the final text of the resolution. Hope offers, as source for his statement, "See generally Report of the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. U.N. Doc. Al5800/Add. 7. Annex. paras. 4-12 (statement by representative of the United Kingdom) (1964)." -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit was self reverted four hours ago. --Langus (t) 00:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You just burst my little bubble. I hadn't payed attention to the timestamp and thought that the rv was motivated by my arguments above. :) Thanks for the notice anyway. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Basalik self reverted after I left a brief message in his talk page about his edit. Just a quick advice Andrés: try to keep your comments a bit on the smaller side, specially when discussing a matter with another editor(s). Big chunks of text like the one above (although completely coherent and relevant in this case) will more often than not be labeled as a WP:WALLOFTEXT or simply disregarded as per WP:BECONCISE. Please don't take this the wrong way, this is nothing but a friendly advice and you are totally within your right to simply dismiss it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gaba. I'll try to be succinct the next time. After all, if they are necessary, the sources can be offered little by little. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Regards. --Langus (t) 22:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We have a good base. Now let's move forward

Now that we have a good starting point, let's begin fresh negotiations in a new section about how it can be improved. First I'd like to address "in return for" versus "reciprocating". I agree with Wee in that there is no need to quote any source verbatim; however, "reciprocating" indicates a mutual agreement, which is what it actually is, whereas "in return for" sounds a bit like "for services rendered". I think "reciprocating" makes more sense here. What do others think? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100%, that's why I've been restoring the original wording from the source (ie: "reciprocating") The words "in return for" have an implication of the position taken being nothing more than a mere favor whereas "reciprocating" has no such connotation. Now I am not a political analyst but even if I were my opinions would matter very little here in WP. It could very well be that China is simply "returning a favor" but if we want the section to mention that, then we need sources that say that much. We can't simply edit in our own analysis of the dispute. If there are sources for such a statement then by all means present them and we can re-factor the section accordingly. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"In return for" implies payment to my mind, whereas "reciprocating" implies mutual back scratching. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The two sentences are equivalent, there was no negative connotation in the very minor change I made to improve the grammer and English usage. However, it is simply something that is too fucking trivial to argue about. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point Scjessey. What I think should be stressed here is that regardless of the meaning of those two wordings one thing is clear: they do not imply the same thing. Given that the source we have at hand chose one way to put it we could only begin to discuss the changing of that wording if we had a new source commenting the issue in a different way. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee. Please refactor your last comment to tone it down a bit. If you do, you may delete this comment at the same time. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee. If it is too trivial to worry about, please just give your consent and then we can move on to the next thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming Wee can provide the necessary source, I would support changing the China sentence to the following:

"Although previously being neutral on the matter, China now reciprocates Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan by backing Argentina's sovereignty claim."

What do others think? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If we can properly source the statement "Although previously being neutral on the matter" I see no problem with adding it. I'd prefer something like this though: "Although previously being neutral on the matter, China now backs Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan". This way we would need to change the current wording very little thus remaining as faithful as possible to the source. What do you think? Regards. Gaba p (talk)

I thought about doing it that way in the first place, but I didn't like the awkward two-comma sentence structure. By the way, as long as we are not changing the meaning of what a source says, using our own words is actually preferable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm yes I see what you mean but we could always loose the second comma, right?. One issue I see with the current wording (adapted from the BBC UK) is that it appears to imply that Argentina backed the Chinese claim to Taiwan first and after that China supported Argentina. Neither that article nor the Mercopress article actually state this clearly. Do we know who supported who first? It'd be nice to find sources on this so we can present this facts more accurately. I'll try to come up with some.

I agree that using our own words is preferable as per WP:COPYPASTE as long as we don't change the meaning. There are certain words though that, if changed, would change the entire meaning of a statement; so those should definitely be kept. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point. The sentence makes it look as if one thing happened before the other. How about:

"Although previously being neutral on the matter, China now backs Argentina's sovereignty claim in a reciprocal agreement in which Argentina supports the Chinese claim to Taiwan."

It's a little more of a mouthful, but it eliminates any potential timeline discrepancy. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely better. When we have the source for the first part I'd say this is the version that should go in. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat my comment that I'm not prepared to argue over trivia. I don't apologise for or withdraw a blunt comment to that effect.

China's Balancing Act: Cancun, the Third World, Latin America Robert L. Worden Asian Survey Vol. 23, No. 5 (May, 1983), pp. 619-636 Published by: University of California Press

I went looking for the source I had in mind, when i came across the above. I think it explains the situation far better. If you register at JSTOR you can read it online. As Kahastok observed, China's foreign policy is quite equivocal. JSTOR is a good resource which shows that not much has in fact changed. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So do you support this then?: "Although previously being neutral on the matter, China now backs Argentina's sovereignty claim in a reciprocal agreement in which Argentina supports the Chinese claim to Taiwan." -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest you register at JSTOR and please read that article first. As regards your text proposal, before I read the above article I would have said yes. Whilst I could simply provide a supporting cite, reading that article made me pause and think it was perhaps too simplistic. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't register. I am not a member of any institution. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee: would you mind presenting here what you have in mind? What do you want to change/remove/add? It would be a lot easier if you just told us instead of having to play guess. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can register for free read access, you only need to register from an institution if you want download access. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

After reading much of this long exchange, the first thing I would like to do is thank Scjessey and Gaba for their patience and skill to reach a compromise that, imho, is better than the low standard that this and other Falklands/Malvinas entries have. However, I see the final version lacking in some aspects.

Firstly, regarding the Taiwan part. As I understand it, the reference that is given doesn't stress a connection between Chinese and Argentine support in the same way as the entry is doing, because the BBC is just associating two declarations that are mere instances. They are not suggesting that Argentina's support on the Taiwan issue is and has been the only or utmost reason for China's position on Malvinas as much as this entry is. Even if they were, one observation would not be enough to present that as a fact or majority opinion.

If I'm not mistaken, Argentina started supporting the PRC's cause for Taiwan in 1972, more than a decade before Chinese support to the Malvinas case. Reasons were complex for both sides and presumably still are, even though Taiwan and Malvinas surely play a role. But all foreign policy is motivated by other agenda, at least partly. It would be endless to include speculations about these motives in an encyclopedia, besides the need that sourced statements reflect what the source is really supporting, avoiding original research. For example, a supporter of the Argentine case could refer to literature indicating that prior Chinese neutrality was explained by Argentine non-recognition of the PRC, and then by negotiations on Hong Kong, with the Chinese stance changing soon after those issues were dealt with. And so forth.

Moreover, is it fair to mention that the PRC was neutral while, for instance, the article says elsewhere that 'The Commonwealth of Nations lists...' with no reference to India's past support to the Argentine case? By the way, what the source is proving there is that the Commonwealth Secretariat lists the Falklands/Malvinas as a member, which (correct me if I'm wrong) does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Commonwealth.

The description of Canada's stance follows a common misapprehension of Argentina's position regarding self-determination. Argentina doesn't deny the islanders' right to self determination. What it states is that the principle is not applicable to this case, basically due to the islanders being what, according to doctrine, is considered an 'implanted population'. The source doesn't make that mistake.

By the way, if Canada's statement is worthy of mention, why not add references to Russian, African, etc. support for Argentina? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

On your first point, I think it is quite clear from the BBC article that China's support is in reciprocation for Argentina's support over Taiwan. Our article is very careful not to imply anything more or less than that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The BBC article says that China's ratification of its backing in December reciprocated Argentina's support to her claim to Taiwan. But our article suggests that China's support as a policy, or at least all of its instances, were in reciprocation. 'Reciprocate' is an ambiguous word, it may imply a quid pro quo or it may not. E.g., 'to do or give something, because something similar has been done or given to you' (Longman) versus 'to behave in the same way as someone else' (Cambridge). Besides stretching the reach of the statement, our version inclines the reader towards the first acception more than the BBC article does. It is therefore even more open to a doubtful interpretation that there was a joint agreement to support both cases, as you're doing in your proposal dated February 26, when in reality the issue was more complex and one support preceded the other by many (volatile) years (I wonder if Wee found hints to this in that JSTOR paper).

This is in addition to the other observation that I made about that particular part. Namely, that this connection and choice of an ambiguous word by one journalist doesn't turn the statement into encyclopedic material to be presented as fact or majority opinion. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrés, I'd say you make a somewhat valid point but I fail to understand what exactly are you proposing. We depend 100% on reliable sources to add information into an article, we can't base the edits on our own WP:OR and/or WP:SYN as accurate and professional as it may be. In this particular case that word is used by the source so we use it too. If you believe there's a possible better wording we could use regarding this matter then you can present it for us to see and discuss. Of course it would have to be reliably sourced (unless you are proposing a re-wording based on the BBC source). Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the noteworthiness of the Taiwan mention and I find it simplistic. Like if there was nothing else in the relations between these two countries and it's rare that foreign relations (or politics at large) are driven by agendas... However, I understand that some editors won't be satisfied if Chinese support for Argentina is not contextualized with it. So, regarding that part, I propose the following: "China backs Argentina's sovereignty claim.<BBC or some other reference><footnote:>Argentina supports the Chinese claim to Taiwan since 1972. China's support for the Argentine claim began with the Raul Alfonsín administration (1983–1989). (see [http://www.cari.org.ar/pdf/argentina-asia.pdf (reference to be formatted))</footnote>". I wish the last reference was one in English but I couldn't search thoroughly; I guess historical details on Sino-Argentine relations are not frequent in languages other than Spanish and Chinese.

As I see it, with this proposal, readers are not induced to believe that Wikipedia and its sources are presenting, as fact, that China and Argentina bound themselves to support their mutual claims on a quid pro quo basis. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all let me tell you: good work finding that source. I looked everywhere for a source that stated when the backings began between these two countries and could not find any, so thanks for sharing it here. Regarding your proposal, I agree that the mention of Taiwan as it is makes it look like there was some kind of mutual agreement to support each other when in reality the supports are more than 10 years apart (as your source states) I'm not really a fan of footnotes so I'd prefer to see your version as is in the section, but given that most editors here will not agree on such an extensive addition perhaps a footnote is the best alternative. In any case, let's wait and see what other editors have to say about your proposal. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It was a quid pro quo and there are plenty of sources that back this up. The claim that foreign policy is rarely determined by agendas is to ludicrous as to be patently false. I reject that edit as misleading. As to the other points, I will repeat again, if this section is to become another WP:OR list of countries I will recommend we remove it for being the problematic mess of unrelated crap it was becoming previously. Further going ahead and implementing that change without waiting for comments was defintitely pointy. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe Andrés source proves quite clearly it was not a quid pro quo as they were separated by 10 years. Do you have sources that state it was a quid pro quo Wee Curry Monster? Could you present at least some of those plenty sources?

Threats of deleting the section (once again) are definitely not helpful, last time you deleted it (unilaterally and with no consensus) it took us about a month to restore it. Of course the section will be edited as new information arrives, this is WP. Articles are not written in stone and we are supposed to improve them with new and encyclopedic developments. As Andrés points out above, the African signing of a statement regarding the issue is an example of a very important piece of information that needs to be added. I'll get on with it as soon as I have some time.

Also Wee Curry Monster, please read Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Andrés source does not prove that at all, to make that claim he has to synthesise an argument, which being based on his own original research is not acceptable. The tiresome habit of demanding sources for material already sourced really has to stop. And I did not revert due to no consensus, I reverted as per my edit summary that the basis for removing terms because of an allegation of bias was false. Continually referring to something I never did is another of your irritating habits that really should stop. Those remarks do not help.

The whole reason the section was removed in the first place was it became problematic because of editors claiming every summit or message of support had to be added. If you're proposing to go down the same route again, please note I oppose per previous discussions and please note I will be starting another RFC to have it removed. I don't see it as helpful to continually go over the same tendentious arguments again. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually read the source Andrés provided? It supports 100% what he edited into the article with absolutely no synth required. Here it goes:

• "Argentina supports the Chinese claim to Taiwan since 1972" --> Pag 16: "...mientras el gobierno de Beijing hace caso omiso por el buen estado de los vínculos y porque aquéllos se mantienen en el marco jurídico de considerar a Taiwan como parte de la RPCh, conforme al comunicado conjunto firmado en 1972" (underlying added) What isn't clear here?
• "China's support for the Argentine claim began with the Raul Alfonsín administration (1983–1989)" --> La política exterior del gobierno de Raúl Alfonsín (pag10-11): "...Por su parte, el gobierno de Beijing apoyó, en el ámbito multilateral, la demanda de restitución de la soberanía argentina sobre las islas Malvinas."

You are stating that it was a quid pro quo and that there are "plenty sources" to back this. Care to present one? Complaining about other editors asking that you provide sources for your claims isn't helpful. If there are "plenty sources" as you claim then it isn't that hard for you to present at least one instead of making long comments just complaining.
Again: threats of removing the section are not helpful. The last RfC clearly demonstrated there was no consensus for doing such a thing (but you did it nevertheless...) and using this threat to scare other editors from adding relevant, sourced and encyclopedic content is definitely WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I'd ask you to please abstain from making such comments please Wee Curry Monster. As I said, the African statement is of utmost relevance to the section and the article and will be added as soon as I have some time to do so (unless another editor does it first) I'll await your sources. Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

[44] As I commented a source was already provided.

Really the battleground mentality is entirely your invention, yet another example of an unhelpful comment seemingly intended to provoke tension.

I am not threatening, I am simply pointing out there was considerable support for removing a problematic section and it seems you're threatening to reprise the same discussion that prompted it in the first place. It was removed because it became problematic and your claim of another statement of utmost relevance, rings exactly the same alarm bells. I can pretty much guess which summit it was, I disagree, the statement simply called for negotiations, which was trumpeted by Argentina as "African support". Wee Curry Monster talk 16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WCM, you are not providing any valid challenge to my edit. What I have entered is supported fact and relevant to a section on international views due to China being the second world power. I had discussed it here properly one week before, after offering details that were absent in the previous, unfinished discussion. If you wish to add something about a quid pro quo, we can go on discussing that without deleting information that was entered.

Regarding quid pro quo, once again the source you offer is not saying what you are claiming it to be saying. Mercopress is not stating that there is a quid pro quo, but that Argentina backs the claim for Taiwan in a similar manner. I accepted the inclusion of such parallel as I inserted a mention to the Chinese claim backed by Argentina, but I will not accept including speculations as if they were fact, much more when no true source has been provided. If you can gather noteworthy sources that really speculate on a quid pro quo, we may discuss about that insertion, done properly (i.e., by saying that such sources say blah blah).

BTW, you misunderstood. What I meant is that agenda-driven foreign policy is not rare, at all. If we were to dismiss foreign policy based on such speculations, the encyclopedia would be empty of it and readers would not be able to know about diplomatic support between countries, which is noteworthy fact. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster: care to point exactly in what way does that source you present invalidate the two edits made by Andrés which I commented above? The only one trying to raise tension is you with your constant threats of removing the section once again if it doesn't stay unchanged, a laughably ridiculous concept for any article in WP. You claim the statement "simply called for negotiations"? Have you checked the news regarding the statement and the declaration itself? Anyway, I'll be adding it as soon as things settle around here and you can swing your arguments for its removal then.

Right now Andrés edits are being discussed so I'll ask you once again: care to point how does that source you present invalidate in any way the two edits made by Andrés? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

[45] My challenge to your edit remains

(A) You removed sourced commentary about the Chinese claim to simply baldy state China backs Argentina - more later.

(B) You incorrectly allege the word lobbies introduces bias - there is plenty of material in the archive to show this is not the case

(C) Your qualification to the Canadian comment is not sustainable, nor is it grammatical or even comprehensible in English.

(D) The Commonwealth Secretariat is merely the administrative arm of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Statement in the article:

“ China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan.[83] ”

Which is directly supported by the above cite. I have no intention to insert quid pro quo as a colloquial statement is contrary to WP:MOS. This is a summary, brevity is important and I do not see your edit as an improvement. I am not speculating, I report what the sources say, your criticism and removal of material from the current article was based on your speculation.

Secondly, as the JSTOR article I linked to above will show, Chinese support is far more equivocal than even the current article would indicate. The simple bald statement you suggest does not convey the nuances in its position at all. I was going to suggest the statement be requalified not so radically simplified. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(A) China does back Argentina present tense. Saying "China has backed" would imply it does not necessarily do anymore, when in reality it does. Andrés edit is more accurate and should remain.

(B) I agree with Andrés that the word "lobbies" is a strong word and would appear to imply a pro-UK bias, but during the discussion that preceded the addition of that section that word was cleared as it can be sourced. So I'd say, let's leave it there.

(C) I don't quite understand what the addition of the word "external" aims at here but since we can't source it, I agree with Wee Curry Monster that it should not be present.

(D) This is a minor change and one way or another the Commonwealth shouldn't even be mentioned since it only "lists" the islands because the UK puts them there. That listing has no bearing on the member countries' position on the issue (except of course the UK) although it gives the impression that it does. Since neither Wee Curry Monster nor Kahastok will ever allow it to be removed without raising hell, let's just leave it in peace.

Note how neither of these reasons explain the removal of the two points added by Andrés regarding China's position, both backed by the source presented:

• "Argentina supports the Chinese claim to Taiwan since 1972" --> Pag 16: "...mientras el gobierno de Beijing hace caso omiso por el buen estado de los vínculos y porque aquéllos se mantienen en el marco jurídico de considerar a Taiwan como parte de la RPCh, conforme al comunicado conjunto firmado en 1972" (underlying added)
• "China's support for the Argentine claim began with the Raul Alfonsín administration (1983–1989)" --> La política exterior del gobierno de Raúl Alfonsín (pag10-11): "...Por su parte, el gobierno de Beijing apoyó, en el ámbito multilateral, la demanda de restitución de la soberanía argentina sobre las islas Malvinas."

Would you care to give your reasons for the removal of those Wee Curry Monster? Oh, and the analysis of the JSTOR article you mention of course constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYN so it's completely irrelevant. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(A) We had already commented on the quote. The source was not taken, what was removed is presenting as encyclopedic fact one loose interpretation (as I argued last week) of this statement by one journalist that, if interpreted in the way you were doing, amounts to just speculation on his part. I replaced that biased summary by some sourced facts. I think I was clear, WCM is just repeating his previous already-answered arguments.

(B) WCM, if 'lobbied' does not have a negative connotation according to you, then why don't allow us to replace it? If you believe 'taken to' is not descriptive enough, we may find a better replacement.

(C) We can drop the word 'external' if you wish. I intended it to avoid giving the wrong impression that there is a dispute in regards to self-determination in the broad sense of the term, which only serves ridiculing the Argentine position on false grounds. The disagreement is on the islanders being attributed a right to veto based on what the literature calls external self-determination, which is the right of a people to decide on which state is sovereign, in contrast to internal self determination which is their right to participate in their government.

(D) If we say that "the Commonwealth of Nations lists", it conveys the wrong idea that, through some group-decision process, the members established that it should be listed. That's not accurate afaik. The organ deciding to list that was, as far as I understand, the Commonwealth Secretariat. You may change this back if you wish. But I still feel it is inaccurately stretching the fact unless you can provide a proper argument to the contrary, as I requested last week, giving it some time before making the edit. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I remain of the view that China should not be included in the article at all. Not with the prominence Gaba gave it, and certainly not with anything like the prominence that Andrés gave it. I have yet to see any evidence that persuades me China's position is relevant in any sense that could not equally be applied to a significant number of other countries. And that section is already too long. Kahastok talk 21:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A) No based on your own WP:OR you've removed sourced material to make a blanket statement that is misleading. Then its been WP:TAG tag team edit warred into the article.

B) I rejected replacing a word that is more accurate.

D) Strawman. The Commonwealth Secretariat is merely the administrative arm of the Commonwealth of Nations. The website used as a source is that of the Commonwealth of Nations. [46] Again you've edit warred misleading material into an article. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WCM, once again, you're just repeating your previous arguments, which were answered already. We already responded to these. Please see above and in the archived discussion, so that we don't enlarge this talk page unnecessarily. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you simply repeat the same comments, ignore any response, claim you answered me and then edit war into the article anyway. The edit you imposed on China is based on your own research, its biased to favour an Argentine POV and misleading. Your edit wrongly attributes material to the Commonwealth Secretariat, which is simply an administrative arm, the website reference is the Commonwealth of Nations. You're seeking, wrongly, to attribute it to a lesser body and underplay the British position. As you're emphasising Argentine support, downplaying that for Britain and edit warring to impose it is difficult to not conclude this is agenda based editing. You've not responded at all, you've imposed an edit and I've tagged it for NPOV. So much for a hard won compromise.

I guess I can now expect Gaba p to make a series of personal attacks, accusing me of misconduct for simply suggesting the article presents a neutral POV as per the previous consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur absolutely with Wee Curry Monster on these POV edits by Andrés Djordjalian and Gaba p. The compromise "base" we all more or less agreed on following the DR process has been butchered by some pretty shameless pro-Argentina editing, with consensus cast aside. I will be restoring the consensus-based text momentarily. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

@Scjessey: what "POV edits" of mine are you referring to? I have not touched a single character of the "International and regional views" section and even expressly said yesterday (after Andrés added the changes and Wee Curry Monster added the NPOV tag) that the edits should be discussed in the talk page.

We should start a new section discussing the edits Andrés is proposing, this one is getting unmanageable. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Could you please be more precise about what is so shamelessly pro-Argentine about my insert? It is not WP:OR, I inserted two sourced facts which I would prefer to omit but I'm taking into consideration the POV that believes that Taiwan has to be mentioned. I discussed the case here bringing in new sourced details. The last message was Gaba's approval (ex. the footnote-or-section thing that we could work out later) and a week passed before I made the edit.

Regarding the previous version, to recap my arguments: (1) The journalist used an ambiguous word (as shown by comparing the dictionary definitions) that doesn't necessarily mean a quid pro quo. (2) He was referring to just one instance and not the whole policy as this article was. (3) Extending the reach of the statement had the additional problem of inclining readers towards the quid pro quo meaning. (4) If the journalist really meant a quid pro quo, which I doubt, it would be just a speculation from one journalist, thus not fact to be presented in WP voice. Where am I wrong? Perhaps we can work out an improvement. (Gaba and the rest, move this to a new section if you wish.) -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Three things happened

1. The Falkland Islanders voted at referendum to remain with Britain
2. Argentina responded as per all the info above.
3. Britain responded with "...we will always be there to defend them".

#1 could stand alone in the article. All three could be used together. But #1 and #2 without #3? Unbalanced IMMHO. Moriori (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you raise a valid point. If we comment on Argentina's position on the referendum we should of course comment on the UK's position too. So, this is the current state of the article:

• The people of the Falkland Islands voted overwhelmingly for the territory to stay British in the 2013 referendum. Argentina has rejected the referendum.

How about something like this?:

• The prime minister of the UK David Cameron asked Argentina to "respect the wishes of islanders"[47] after they voted overwhelmingly for the territory to stay British in the 2013 referendum. Argentina considers that the islanders are not a part of the sovereignty dispute and dismissed the referendum as having no legal value.[48]

I believe this text includes all the relevant information and positions. What do you think? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why mention David Cameron and not the Argentine President?Slatersteven (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought about mentioning something along the lines of "The UK asked Argentina to respect the wishes of the islanders" but I couldn't find any source stating an official "full-government" position so I mentioned David Cameron which is what all the sources say. In Argentina's case the dismissal was not only stated by its president but also by its Congress and Senate houses (even passing a official declaration) making it a "full-government" or "full-country" rejection. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=9987, http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21573581-islanders-seek-sway-world-opinion-voting-stay-british-loud-and-clear, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/12/falkland-islanders-vote-o_n_2857805.html, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3711944.ece.Slatersteven (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Of those 4 articles I'd say the first one is the only one that could be used since it explicitelly says "The UK government...". What is being assigned to the "UK government" is actually a quote by Foreign Secretary William Hague but if you believe this is enough to mention "The UK" as a whole then that's good enough for me. How about this version of the statement then (I used a BBC source which I find a more reliable than The Tripoli Post)?

• The UK urged all countries to respect the islanders' wishes[49] after they voted overwhelmingly for the territory to stay British in the 2013 referendum. Argentina considers that the islanders are not a part of the sovereignty dispute and dismissed the referendum as having no legal value.[50]

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 00:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@Moriori: #1 cannot stand alone, it needs clarification on the implications of such referendum. Does it resolve the dispute? Every newspaper seems to address this question with a quote from Kirchner or an Argentine minister; however, we must keep in mind that the rationale for rejection is not an invention from these characters but a real possibility in International Law: the inapplicability of self-determination in some cases. I'm willing to let you choose the words for it, but the reason for rejection should be included.

#3 actually sounds like soap boxing... why would it be relevant? Anyhow, I'm open to consider its inclusion. --Langus (t) 06:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You astound me Langus. You are arguing that Wiki not present the whole picture and allow readers to form their own opinions. If we present 1 , 2 and 3 as I set them out above, without undue embellishment or POV, then the chain of events will be adequately covered and presented. Internationally it will be interpreted as # 1 a referendum is held, # 2 Argentinia screams unfair, illegal, irrelevant, we own the Falklands etc and # 3 the Brits make a comment which can only be construed as don't interfere or we will blow you to kingdom come. You mention we need "clarification on the implications of such referendum". The most telling and chilling implication is that Britain has in effect told Argentinia to pull its head in or else. There is no other implication as important as that one. But you want to suppress information which might lead readers to that conclusion when they analyse the whole event. Unreal. Moriori (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Moriori: I believe you are making an incorrect assessment of Langus' comment. I have to agree with him that the mention by Cameron of "defending" the islands are nothing but political grandstanding. Argentina has made it very clear that military actions by its part are out of the question and furthermore that particular quote by Cameron has pretty much nothing to do with the referendum itself (Cameron has actually been saber-rattling for a while now[51][52] [53][54] etc..) What do you think of my proposed text? I added the UK's position on the referendum as you suggested to give the mention some more balance. Please tell me what you think. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

And there's the rub, clear as crystal. Cameron is grandstanding, but Argentina isn't! Illogical. I don't have a stake in this dogfight, either way, but I recognise when It seems some people might be trying to slant an article, intentionally or not. Your contention that what Cameron said has "pretty much nothing to do with the referendum itself" is unbelievable. Here's one newspaper --"Argentinia must take “careful note” of the referendum result and reiterated that Britain will 'always be there to defend' the Falkland Islanders. In a clear warning to Argentina, Mr Cameron said that the Falkland islanders 'couldn’t have spoken more clearly' (in the referendum).They want to remain British and that view should be respected by everybody, including by Argentina".

Re your suggested addition of UK position, I think it's OK except it's not chronological -- referendum, Argie grandstanding, then Brit grandstanding. That's how it evolved. Moriori (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Moriori: it's politics, both countries are grandstanding. The UK with Cameron's saber rattling and Argentina with Kirchner's bombastic characterizations of the referendum (ie: "a parody"[55], "a reunion of squatters"[56], etc..) As I've told you, the mentions by Cameron of "defending" the islands have been happening for over a year now, well before the referendum was even proposed. That he chose to repeat himself after it is really irrelevant. In any case I have no idea how (and why) you propose to include a mention to Cameron's "we will defend the islands" statement. Would you care to make a proposal for an edit?

Regarding the chronology, I think the statements happened pretty much at the same time (March 12th) Do you have sources that clearly separate these events? And, does it really matter? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, both countries, which supports my position. Tks. Regarding chronology, it's logical. Moriori (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In this article, I agree with Gaba's second proposed text. The article as a whole is messy and difficult to understand, so having a direct explanation for the Argentine response to the referendum is beneficial to the reader. However, this does not change my position in the Falkland Islands article, over the same issue. It would be great if the two main sides in this discussion could find a compromise along these lines. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For those unaware, Marshall is referring to this discussion going on over at Falkland Islands regarding the same issue being discussed here. Thank you for your input Marshall! Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to hear from WCM and Moriori what level of opposing viewpoint would be allowed in this article in relation to the referendum, if any. Proposals would be even better. --Langus (t) 03:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't comprehend my original post in this section! However, I didn't miss your post where you removed referenced encyclopedic information from the article. Moriori (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My 2 ¢: It's hard to explain the "pro-Malvinas" reaction, why the plebiscite was extensively considered illegitimate (I think that's the word you're looking for other than illegal, despite what DW and Anibal Fernandez said), when its position regarding self-determination is so badly represented in the article. "That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal" (wrong, they need to be considered a distinct people with a valid argument for the territory, which not necessarily means being "aboriginal") "and were brought" (wrong choice of words; population transfers can be voluntary, e.g. if motivated by economic incentives and misinformation) "to replace the Argentine population" (not accurate, the Argentine argument stresses the effect of discriminatory migratory and economic policy, as well as from an unlawful authority over the islands, more than the effect of forced removal of Argentine settlers in 1833). I don't see this sentence following from the source that is referenced, which was lifted but can be read from archive.org.

BTW, this depiction is not just incorrect, but gives way to erroneous clichés that are commonly used to attack the Argentine case. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrés: the word illegal (or of no legal value) is what we can source. It doesn't matter if we believe the right word is illegitimate, editing on the basis of what we believe to be correct with no sources to back up our edits would be a breach of WP:OR.

I see you have a problem with one of the "Argentinian claims". If I'm not mistaken that statement is sourced to this article. Per WP:BRD if you believe you can make a contribution to the section then go ahead and re-phrase that statement. If you are reverted either open a new discussion here or answer in the discussion that the editor that reverted you might have opened. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no issues with the new text.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Per broad consensus and WP:BRD I'm adding the text to the section. Cheers all! Gaba ^(talk) 12:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gaba. The verbatim you entered solves the issue I was observing. My problem with illegal was that it rather means not allowed according to law, versus not done according to law which is an acception of illegitimate or unlawful. I didn't research for sources extensively but I understood a portion used illegitimate while others were using other words which were being summarized here. According to their own explanations, I don't think those few who said illegal implied that the islanders were acting against the law. I'm aware of WP:OR.

I'm going to see about the other correction regarding self-determination. As said before, I don't think the published sentence follows from that source (which, BTW, needs a URL fix). There is too much to rework in these articles and it apparently takes so much effort to discuss each small issue. To be frank, I don't think the Wikipedia process is adequate for controversial subjects like this. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I oppose Gaba's proposal because it entirely misses the point. It suggests that it is the UK government's statement, and not the referendum, is the important historical event here. No. It is the referendum itself that is significant, and all other reactions that are secondary. I have reworded the previous version for style. Kahastok talk 20:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: I agree with your reasoning and your re-wording but you deleted the information agreed here as valuable to the article. I've added back this information while keeping your positioning of the statements. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Moriori rearranged the statements and changed them a bit. It looks like this now:

• In March 2013 the Falkland Islanders voted overwhelmingly in a referendum for the territory to remain British. Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value saying the islanders are not a part of the sovereignty dispute. The UK urged Argentina and other countries to respect the islanders' wishes.

I have a small issue with the wording of Argentina's dismissal. As it is it would appear that we are stating that because Argentina "considers the islanders are not a part of the dispute" then it "dismissed the referendum as illegal". As far as I can tell from the sources I've read, I'm not sure this is the case legally speaking. That Argentina "consider that the islanders are not a part of the dispute" and that it "dismissed the referendum as illegal" are both facts, but I don't know if it's correct (basing on the sources presented) to assign a causation between fact 1 and fact 2. That's why I believe the previous wording was better ("Argentina considers that the islanders are not a part of the sovereignty dispute and dismissed the referendum as having no legal value.") because it does not appear to imply this. Am I being too picky? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are. Once more with feeling. #1 There was a referendum. #2 Argentina dismissed it. #3 Brits urged others to respect it.

You want to start #2 with "Argentina considers that the islanders are not a part of the sovereignty dispute". We've known that for years and don't need a history lesson starting an important component in this article about the referendum. The significantly important point is that Argentina dismissed the referendum, and that surely has to start that sentence. OK, so maybe there were several reasons why. If it worries you that much why not excise "saying the islanders are not a part of the sovereignty dispute" from the article? Moriori (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you check my initial edit it did only have the first part. The part about "the islanders are not a part of the sovereignty dispute" was added after you said I was "cherry picking" for leaving that part out. So I ask you: should that bit stay or be removed? If you agree on removing that last part from the statement and leaving only the first part (ie: "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value.") then I'd ask you to please do so I don't unwillingly breach 3RR (I believe I'm on the verge right now). Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh shit, I didn't even think of 3RR. OK, I will remove that info and if anyone objects they can leave a message here. My cherry picking comment was about one comment being selected over others, not that that particular comment should be the one used.Moriori (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Current version looks good to me. Regards. --Langus (t) 00:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that conentious phrase again. If we are to explain to readers why Argentina rejected it, it is not for reasons of "legality", it is because it does not recognise that the islanders have any say in the matter. The phrase used is actually misleading readers as to the reason why. Once could if one desired pick any one of a number of phrases simply added for their headline grabbing value as "reasons" but that does nothing for the purposes of explaining matters to our readers. The obsession with using that phrase should stop and the text should cut to the chase. And no I'm not going to self-revert, you added that phrase again when there was no consensus to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And copy edited with text that Marshall produced on Falkland Islands. This is more accurate and avoids the use of headlines as "sourced" content. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wee I've reverted your WP:BRD. The version in place was consensuated in this discussion which involved the contributions of 7 editors. Your edit removes important information from the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

Again do not refer to me as Wee. You know I don't like it, stop it now.

Again I've given a reason for changing, I copy edited the text to give a more accurate reason. WP:BRD is not a charter for blanket reverting, you give no reason so I've reverted you. If we follow WP:BRD we go back to before your text was introduced.

Again the text emerged on Falkland Islands as a more accurate summary and it has the benefit of being neutral, not using the pseudo legalese you have been insisting is adopted. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen you tell me you didn't like me referring to you specifically as "Wee". I just thought it upset you that I simply said your nickname which I can't help to do when I'm referring to you. So I'll refer to you as Wee Curry Monster from now on.

Just because you've given a reason that does not allow you to delete information added after a discussion that involved 7 editors. You performed a WP:BRD removing information from the article[57] and I reverted with the clear reason stated above that your edit removed important information (again: consensuated in a discussion involving 7 editors). Your second deletion[58] of this information is just edit-warring and I'll ask you to please self rv.

You do not WP:OWN the article Wee Curry Monster and your word is not a command. This is WP and we work by discussing and reaching a consensus. Again: please self rv. If you have an issue then bring it to talk page and wait to hear from other editors. If a consensus is formed to back your edit then it can be included, this is how WP works. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Your accusation that I have deleted information is unhelpful, immediately you have resorted to accusations rather than discussing content. Equally unhelpful is the accusation of WP:OWN, in fact your whole comment is nothing but accusations, not one word of discussion on content. As you're not actually discussing content I do not feel a self-revert is called for but if I am reverted again I will be tagging the article for the non-neutral and inaccurate summary you are insisting we use.

I note Kahastok had in fact rejected your edit, you simply revert warred it back, so please stop the claims to hold the moral high ground. I do not intend to edit war at all. But I do wish to see the text materially improved.

I have not in fact deleted information, I have presented information in a more accurate summary, which avoided the use of WP:WEASEL words. My edit really should have been a no-brainer, the revert claiming I am not allowed to edit is really unhelpful (and somewhat hypocritical for someone accusing another editor of WP:OWN.

If however you wish to discuss and agree prior to inserting text, then please self-revert to before you inserted text I have previously commented upon as not suitable content for a wikipedia article and which other editors objected to.

In passing, you appear to have a WP:OWN problem in never accepting when an edit you propose is modified by another editor. That is how wikipedia is in fact supposed to work. That was honest advice, which doesn't require a comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You have deleted information. This is not an accusation, it is a fact. The content has been discussed and the reasons given, once again, are clear: you are removing important, relevant and properly sourced information from the article. Your threats of adding a non-neutral tag if you don't get your way are definitely WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

Kahastok made an edit that was re-factored and he did not complain in any way. Neither did any of the other 5 editors involved in the discussion.
Once again: you are fully aware that your behavior is text book edit-warring and you did remove information from the article. This is the fifth time in about 10 days you remove the same piece of information by the way[59][60][61][62][63].
As per WP:BRD we go back to the last consensual version which, as you well know, is the one that sited in the article unchallenged for at least three days after being factored in a 7-editor discussion. We don't go back to your preferred version just because you disagree with the current consensus, that's not how it works. Again you know this already.
The one with the clear WP:OWN issue is you Wee Curry Monster, if you bother to look the last version of that statement was achieved after editor Moriori changed it, not me. Once again: please self rv and wait for other editors to comment if you have a problem with a part of the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

3 days is rarely what would be considered a concensus, Kahastok often does not edit for several days and the assertion that he consented because he didn't immediately revert is patently false. Your edit was challenged, per WP:BRD you should have discussed it, you edit warred it back.

Secondly I'll play your game of semantics. Yes I have removed your insertion of a quasi-legal justification culled from a series of hysterical headlines. But I have not removed information, I have instead replaced it with text providing a better summary and explanation of why Argentina rejected that referendum. You demand we explain why, I have done so; your edit did not.

Finally, I simply note you've made a series of hysterical allegations but have not made one single comment about content. I also note your lobbying on 2 separate admin pages accusing me of edit warring. It seems very clear the only reason for your revert was to use it as an excuse for allegations of edit warring. [64] I just wished to note that I fully agree with this revert, I would probably have done so myself had it not been for the chilling effect of these allegations. If I had done so, I am sure based on previous occasions you'd claim this routine house keeping as "edit warring". Wee Curry Monster talk 10:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that three or four days' silence is not consensus, particularly after someone has objected.

I often think that people editing at this stage don't quite think of what they're writing in context.

I find it difficult to imagine that a reader will have got this far down the article without having gathered that of course Argentina is going to reject the referendum because they reject self-determination. This is not somewhere, at the end of the history section, that we should be introducing the fact that Argentina doesn't accept that the islanders have any say in the matter. If any of this is so desperately needed, that would mean that we've failed to put some of the most basic facts of the case.

I find the argument "having no legal value" is a subjective statement. It probably has no legal value in Argentina - one would be surprised if it did, given that it wasn't called by any government under Argentine jurisdiction. I can think of plenty of referendums that have no legal value in Argentina. On the other hand I'd suggest that it's reasonably obvious that the referendum does have legal value in the Falkland Islands (at the very least, the Falkland Islands under their current government), having been called by the government of the Falkland Islands. The "no legal value" phrase sounds pretty sensational but with a little thought you realise it's meaningless. Curry Monster's point puts the position across better. Kahastok talk 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster: it wasn't "my edit", it was Moriori's edit that you deleted since he was the one to add it to the article after discussion in the talk page. Once again: yes, you have removed important information, repeatedly stating you have not does not change that fact. And yes, your behavior is without a doubt edit-warring, as you well know.

It is not a simple headline, it is the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum as can be easily gathered from the huge number of sources I've presented [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]. The German news media Deutsche Welle says explicitly: "The Argentine government considers the referendum illegal and does not recognize it, based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization."[76] It is hard to be any more clear than that but in case you need it to be more clear, here's the official declaration put forward by the Argentinian Senate regarding the referendum (see 4274/12) In the declaration's conclusion it states:

“ Mr. President, by the above, I ask my peers to join me in the adoption of this draft declaration, which rejects the illegal referendum that has called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in violation of the UN resolutions in the Question of the Malvinas Islands. ”

(emphasis added) This is as official and as clear as it can get to support the statement "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value". Do you consider this a "hysterical headline" too Wee Curry Monster?

Kahastok: your own analysis about the referendum's legality or lack of it is irrelevant in WP as you well know. We present what is stated in reliable sources and I have presented more than enough of them to support the previous wording. We don't have to expect the reader to infer information from other sections of the article when the addition 5 words can make a fact completely clear.

Wee Curry Monster, I'd hope that with the presentation of the official Argentinian statement (along with the huge number of other sources) you'll realize you are in the wrong and self-rv. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Argentine response is well summarized by saying that it doesn't consider the islanders to be a part in the dispute. That constitutes WP:OR, and not a good one imo. What is so wrong about saying that Argentina regarded the referendum as having no legal value besides it not being precise? I agree with the convenience of avoiding imprecision, but it shouldn't be at the expense of conveying the wrong idea. Sometimes it's good to communicate that something cannot be precisely summarized in a few words. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. What is so wrong with "as having no legal value"?? Kahastok, what do you mean by "a subjective statement"? Do I really have to bring in academic sources stating that the islanders may not be entitled to self-determination? Would that settle the matter? --Langus (t) 22:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaba claims he makes the point "completely clear" - but his proposal makes it as clear as mud. The key point with regard to a statement as to whether something has legal value - the reason why it is subjective - is that it depends on whose law we're talking about. Unless we know that - and we don't - the statement is entirely meaningless. Our articles should make sense and should actually be providing meaningful information. The proposal that you insist upon fails this most basic test.

But my other point above also remains. Gaba seems to argue above that we have to rehash all the basic arguments every time we mention something like this. That any time we mention any historical event, we have to immediately put such very basic points. The same basic points. Over and over again. Throughout the article, every third sentence is going to be saying exactly effectively the same thing. Which is a waste of our effort and a waste of our reader's time.

We have to assume that the reader is actually going to read the article. If we are having to explain at this late stage that Argentina doesn't recognise self-determination then we've done it wrong. It should not be possible for the reader to have got this far down the article without this most basic point having already been made clear. Kahastok talk 16:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, are you sure you're talking about the same edit being proposed here? The edit "isn't clear"? I argue we should "rehash arguments every third sentence"? How do any of this things apply to the addition of 5 words to a statement in the article:

• Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value.

vs

• Argentina dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum, since it only recognises the UK government as a legitimate partner in negotiations.

It's actually shorter than what you and Wee are trying to enforce into the article. Argentina is claiming the referendum is invalid and that is the reason as to why it dismissed it. What is not clear about this? Did you read the official declaration by the Argentine Senate I presented above? Here it goes again just in case you missed it:

“ Mr. President, by the above, I ask my peers to join me in the adoption of this draft declaration, which rejects the illegal referendum that has called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in violation of the UN resolutions in the Question of the Malvinas Islands. ”

At this point I just believe neither you nor Wee Curry Monster are willing to give an inch for the sake of opposing an edit I endorse, even though the sources and the wording are irrefutable. If the issue does not move forward I propose to open an RfC to get outside opinion. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, a sovereignty referendum pertains international law, the statement refers to this. When they say that it has no legal value, there is more to it than Argentina's belief that the islanders are not a part in the dispute. You may see, from sources such as those provided by Gaba, that the lack of UN approval and monitoring is repeatedly noted. This implies a lack of recognition from the international community, when consensus within this community is a source of international law (in contrast with Argentina's sole opinion). It is therefore an important argument to justify Argentina's response, that in no way is included if we simply say that Argentina doesn't consider the islanders to be part of the dispute. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What International Law?

How many referendums in Argentina require UN approval?

How many referendums in Argentina require UN monitoring?

These are not examples relevant to International Law, they're headline grabbing nonsense.

A lack of recognition in the International community?

First of all not entirely correct, Canada and other countries have recognised it, and secondly recognition is not always universal - example the Kosovo declaration of independence. Consensus within the International community is not International law

Again headline grabbing, much as a “meeting of squatters deciding whether to remain in the occupied premises”.

If we are to explain why Argentina rejected the referendum, apart from the Mandy Rice-Davies comment, it is because it doesn't recognise the Falklanders even exist. Which is what the article now states in effect. Gaba's version was about as clear as mud in that respect, it repeated the headline but doesn't convey the reason it actually obscures it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I believe this is ripe for RfC. I'll open one as soon as I have a few minutes. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WCM, there is an international law regulating the relationship between nations. International consensus is a source for it. Consensus led to the creation of the UN as an institution for the states to deal with matters of sovereignty, among others, in an organized manner. If we are dealing with a referendum to establish external self-determination, UN recognition or its lack thereof is important. I didn't say that no-one in the international community approved the referendum, but "Canada and other countries" are not as authorized as the UN Assembly on those matters. If you disagree with all this, that is your prerogative, but it is a subjective position, not a hard fact. To change the Argentine statements based on such beliefs is not clarification but distortion.-- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I can cite multiple sovereignty referendums that have had absolutely no UN sanction or standing in international law. Here are three: Quebec 1995; Montenegro 2006; Scotland 2014. There is no shortage of others. Their validity is based on their standing in national law and the respect of the respective national governments (Canada, Serbia & Montenegro and the UK) for the results.

Your claim that "[c]onsensus led to the creation of the UN as an institution for the states to deal with matters of sovereignty, among others, in an organized manner" is inaccurate. But even if true, the text that Gaba insists is the only one possible wording does not say that. Curry Monster's wording puts the point across much better - but as I say, the fact is that we shouldn't need anything at all here. If we're suddenly introducing the idea that Argentina doesn't accept self-determination - one of the most basic points her - right at the end of the history section, we've done it wrong.

A major part of the problem here is Gaba's my way or the highway approach, where he refuses to accept any wording other than his own and insists that any murmur of disagreement must be in bad faith. That he threatens to take it further if we don't agree to do whatever he tells us to is not a new tactic, but it is as unhelpful now as ever before. Kahastok talk 19:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The concept of International law referred to above is completely wrong, International Law is based on consent ie states do not have to abide by a convention unless they specifically consent to it. International Consensus is immaterial, states agreed to sign up to the UN. None of the statements referred to are actually based on International Law, they are simply political noise to grab headlines. You wish to report a subjective position as a hard fact, selecting one of many attention grabbing statements and more importantly misleading as to the underlying cause. The UN General Assembly has in fact made no comment whatsoever, nor would it do so on a purely internal matter. The comments on the UN are a complete strawman - they have no relevance to the matter at hand. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

@Kahastok: in case you didn't notice there were 5 editors besides me who agreed on the wording that you and Wee Curry Monster removed. Incidentally Wee Curry Monster has removed that information from the article 5 times in the last 12 days [77][78][79][80][81]. I'd say that "my way or the highway" is pretty much your way.

@Wee Curry Monster: how can you keep opposing the addition of 5 words to the article ("as having no legal value") after the huge number of sources presented, which even include the official statement by the Argentinian Senate clearly stating that it dismisses the referendum as illegal, is beyond me. Just to be clear: no one is talking about removing anything from the article, except you and Kahastok. The idea of the rest of the editors here is to add information while you two just keep removing it.
Furthermore all the mentions of "International law" in both your comments is WP:OR as you well know. We are clearly assigning the qualification of "illegal" to Argentina (which is who said it), we are not stating in WP's authoritative voice that the referendum "was illegal". I've opened an RfC below to get some outside input. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WCM and Kahastok: As Gaba says, all this talk about international law is a digression, but you are missing my point. Of course states are entitled to signing treaties between them without asking the UN first, including a "parent" state granting sovereignty to one of its regions, and those treaties are an utmost source of rights between them. By the way, such secessions would normally receive an a-posteriori sanction by the UN to be recognized by the international community at large, so the UN still has a saying. But I meant to stress the importance of international consensus for the interpretation of such treaties, which include ample ones such as the meaning of state recognition according to the Westphalian order, and the UN Charter, as well as for the validation of other sources of law. Sovereignty over Falkland/Malvinas is not simply an internal British issue, so UN declarations are important.

Anyway, the bottom line is that all this is WP:OR. We are not arguing between competing analyses. We are asking you to respect the original verbatim because the summary you are proposing involves disputed beliefs. WCM's version only becomes "much better" if one shares those beliefs. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No nothing of the sort. You raised the straw man of a legal basis for such a claim, we simply pointed out it was based on a flawed understanding of International Law. The basis of my objection is nothing to do with in being an internal British issue, it is that such comments are nothing but political grand standing in Argentina and selecting one of many to make a political statement in wikipedia's voice violates WP:NPOV and actually confuses matters by obscuring the reason at the root of it all. That is why my edit is superior.

I put it to you that insisting on the attribution to you only makes sense if you share the same beliefs as those making such a statement. We all have a POV, the trick is to ensure it doesn't stray into our editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WCM, I was explaining why the UN's voice is important in matters of sovereignty dispute between nations. I disagree with your criticism on those observations regarding international law, but let's avoid that discussion. Of course we all have a POV, but the position you are forwarding is that the UN's voice is not important at all, thus that part of Argentina's response is rubbish that we better disregard as we summarize, while our position is that the UN's voice may be important, thus we better be faithful to that aspect of the Argentine response. I can confidently say that believing that the UN's voice may be important is more-widely held, thus more objective, though not perfectly so. On the other hand, categorically dismissing it is, to my understanding, so subjective that it doesn't reach the standards of an encyclopedia. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, my point was your comments about the UN which you allege relate to International Law do not. I did not say the UN's voice was unimportant but there has been no comment from either the Security Council or the General Assembly and you appear to be trying to misrepresent my comments. It would not be the first time that Argentina has sought legitimacy by making claims about the UN, however, those claims are simply headline grabbing and attributing comments made by Argentina to the UN in wikipedia's voice would however be a gross violation of NPOV. My comments on International Law are accurate, if however, you chose to ignore them that is your prerogative but it doesn't change the price of fish. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not in Wikipedia's voice, as it is clear that it was an Argentine response. The Argentine statements referred to positions by the UN Assembly such as those that I offer and source below, in the "Sources for a reverted statement" section of this talk page. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: On reason for Falkland referendum dismissal by Argentina

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

The RFC comment is not neutral and does not present the issue at all.

In various political statements, Argentine politicians have dismissed the refererendum as "illegal" or being invalid as the Falklanders do not exist, or because they are "squatters". Such political statements have no place in a wikipedia article presenting a NPOV.

The reason Argentina dismissed the referendum is it refuses to recognise that the Islanders have a say in the sovereignty dispute. The edit proposed by Gaba P obscures this, he takes a comment made by political leaders out of context as the "reason", which is misleading. The current article is a neutral summary of the situation. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(Dismissing usual "not neutral" accusations)

The issue is quite simple really. We have endless sources stating that Argentina dismissed the referendum as "illegal". This is the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum as can be easily gathered from the huge number of sources presented [82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]. The German news media Deutsche Welle says explicitly: "The Argentine government considers the referendum illegal and does not recognize it, based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization."[93] To make it even more clear, the official declaration put forward by the Argentinian Senate regarding the referendum states (emphasis added):

“ Mr. President, by the above, I ask my peers to join me in the adoption of this draft declaration, which rejects the illegal referendum that has called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in violation of the UN resolutions in the Question of the Malvinas Islands. ”

This is as official and as clear as it can get to support the statement "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value" (which means adding at most 5 words to the article). Incidentally, editor Wee Curry Monster has removed that information from the article 5 times in the last 12 days [94][95][96][97][98].

The edit was discussed above where it can be seen that 6 editors agreed to its inclusion, immediately removed by Wee Curry Monster. The edit furthermore does not propose to "obscure" information as Wee Curry Monster claims, quite the contrary: it aims at adding properly sourced, relevant and factual information to the article, which is being blocked by him and Kahastok. They keep referring to the edit as a "comment made by political leaders" when it's a fact that this is the official position of the country, as clearly proven by the official declaration approved by Argentina's Senate presented above. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The simple way to demonstrate this is a political statement - ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening. QED

The simple facts, Argentina rejected the referendum as it doesn't recognise the people of the Falklands had the right to hold it. Everything else is just headline grabbing nonsense. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Mosnter: "ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening". German news media Deutsche Welle: "based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization"[99]. Furthermore, leaving out the reason, as stated by the country itself (an indisputable fact), because you believe "no law was broken" is a gross violation of WP:OR as you are well aware.

The simple facts we should add are those we can source: Argentina dismissed it as illegal as all the sources presented above clearly state. Also, calling "headline grabbing nonsense" to the official position of a country as put forward by its Senate is rather offensive. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, Deutsche Welle, reported comments from Argentina. And btw the comment was which law was broken, neither of those comments relate to International Law. My comments about "headline grabbing nonsense" relate to comments by politicians, the attempt to spin this as being offensive is a rather naked attempt to shut down comment. BTW as I've previously pointed out, your obsession with the WP:LASTWORD will more than likely deter outside comment, since the RFC you raised will be perceived as a disruptive editor lobbying to have his version imposed. Just as you've effectively disrupted previous RFC you will cause your own to be still born. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Deutsche Welle, reported comments from Argentina", that's precisely what I'm saying. "the comment was which law was broken", this is more of your usual WP:OR Wee Curry Monster. Not commenting on usual WP:PAs once again. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I realise English is not your first language, so I will simply point out that none of those comments actually relate to International Law. I could however modify my comment that "ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening" would be better replace by "ask which law is being broken and all that is received in response is loud shouting about something completely unrelated"

Honest advice as to how to avoid disrupting your own RFC is not a Personal Attack. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My objections:

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

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

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

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

Kahastok: about your first paragraph, no one is proposing that. I'm not even sure what you are talking about. The proposed edit is to simply add 5 words to the article (at most).

Second paragraph: that's WP:OR. It's not our concern how do international laws apply. Argentina has stated this as its reason for the dismissal of the referendum (this is indisputable) and we should mention it as such.

Third paragraph: Wee Curry Monster's statement can stay in its entirety. Again, no one is talking about removing information here, except you and him.

Fourth paragraph: please read the comments where I said I'd open an RfC and see it they agree with Kahastok's accusations: [100][101]. Your bad faith representation of my comments is just astonishing Kahastok. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason why have been repeatedly warned and blocked for accusing editors of bad faith, Gaba. WP:AGF is not just a rule for the sake of having a rule.

There is absolutely nothing in policy, including WP:NOR, that prevents my from objecting to the edit concerned on precisely the grounds I raised in my second paragraph.

I raise those points in my first paragraph because nobody else is raising them. And I don't see how I can make it any clearer. But I will try once more.

If we need to put these points, then we need to think about why we need them. The underlying point here - the disagreement as to whether self-determination applies - is one of the most basic points of difference between the two sides. Of all the points that this article makes, this is one of the most important for the reader's understanding of the dispute. If this key point is so non-obvious to the reader that we need any explanation beyond that covered by Moriori's point 1, it is because the article as a whole is failing to give it due prominence. We should fix this failure in the article as a whole, rather than trying explain a vital point as an aside at an apparently arbitrary point half way down the article. Kahastok talk 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment; if some content regarding the view of X Y or Z regarding their opinion of the Falkland Islands' referendum it should be attributed as the opinion of whomever or what organization says whatever. The weight of the content should be equal to the weight of the notability of the individual in relation to the subject. Furthermore, if X says they are against B, than for balance, I can see also including Y says they are for B.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

On attribution: the statement is attributed to Argentina, in no way is it stated in WP's authoritative voice. On weight: the "individual" making the statement is Argentina as a country so notability is a given. On balance: the statement already includes the UK's view on the referendum, precisely for this reason. Just to make it clear, this is the edit being proposed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)