Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Timeline

year format

Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute: Timeline of de facto control

month format

Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute: Timeline of de facto control

Year Format + Month accuracy

Timeline of de facto control

February 1764 – April 1767	France
January 1765 – July 1770	Great Britain
April 1767 – February 1811	Spain
September 1771 – May 1776	Great Britain
February 1811 – August 1829	None
August 1829 – December 1831	United Provinces
December 1831 – January 1832	United States
January 1832 – December 1832	None
December 1832 – January 1833	Argentina
January 1833 – August 1833	United Kingdom
August 1833 – January 1834	None
January 1834 – April 1982	United Kingdom
April 1982 – June 1982	Argentina
June 1982 – present	United Kingdom

My issues with the timeline introduced are as follows. Some are fixable, some are inherent.

• It replaces the maps of the islands with each country's toponymy. Other editors have argued that it is important, on an article such as this, to recognise the fact that the two sides name geographic features and places on the islands differently. I see merit in this argument and feel that these should be kept.
• The countries are in a bizarre order. They should be alphabetical or (better) chronological.
• Terra nullius is a legal term. Territory cannot be de facto terra nullius.
• The timeline seriously distorts the periods of times that countries were on the islands. The brief period of American control, and the two weeks of Argentine control under Pinedo, appear to be much longer than the two months of Argentine control in 1982 and the eight months of British control in 1833.
• The timeline mucks up the formatting of the section it is placed in, a section in which this kind of timeline is not really appropriate.

We do things to the nearest month in the lead box for a reason. Sometimes, changes in de facto control happened quickly, and we need to reflect this. For me, the most important issue is that the timeline fails to give this kind of precision. I do not see that we add very much by including it, and I feel that it's not worth the risk of misleading people. Pfainuk talk 15:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1. maps can be added. no problem
2. the countries aren't in a bizarre order. the order is: first in, first down. 1)Terra Nulius (no discoverer), 2)France (1.settler), 3)UK (2.settler) 4)Spain (3.settler) 5)Argentina (4.settler) 6)USA (no settler and last to come). But we can change it as we like it.
3. Terra nullius: WP says which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty.. It is the usual term to label such territories, but we can change it as we like it.
4. Yes, it isn't perfect. Unfortunately, the software for date format dd/mm/yyyy accepts dates up 1800, so that we can use only the year of the date. But the reader gets a overview of the country's permanence on the islands and that is much better than what the table does. a picture often tells more than a thousand words. And that is the main point.
5. We change the timeline's position. No problem.

The image adds a lot of information in a brief manner. I don't think that a map, an image, a timeline or a photo has to be an exact reproduction of the reality. A picture helps the reader to understand the phenomenon.

--Keysanger 19:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfection shouldn't be required, but my view is that the fact that the timeline is so imprecise as to potentially mislead the reader (in that two weeks appears longer than eight months) is a problem - enough of a problem that I can't support including a timeline on this basis. And it looks like a difficult problem to resolve as well: pre-1800 dates have been requested before, some time ago, and the request does not seem to have been acted upon.

I don't object in principle to a timeline - I've commented on it before and my position today is not dissimilar. But I think we need the ends of each block to be precise at least to the nearest month or two to ensure accuracy. Pfainuk talk 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm torn on this. If you recall I suggested a figure like this some time ago, ultimately it was rejected in favour of the table largely because as you note the large blue line does kind of make an emphatic point. As regards this effort, I fall down on the side of Pfainuk on this occasion as unfortunately the limits of the software can introduce a misleading impression of the timescale. I nontheless commend you for the effort that went into producing it. Regards, Justin talk 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I added an image with month-precision. The numbers give the months counted from 0 a.C.. The only perceptible difference is the permanence of the USA and Argentina in the 1830's. For UK is also a difference but irrelevant. In any other article, no one would disputes the image. But I concede that the theme is too controversial for such inaccuracy. I will pipe up if I find a better solution. --Keysanger 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I uploaded a "png"-image with the demanded accuracy. What about? --Keysanger 22:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll have a go with some suggested settings:

I've reversed the order (so that the earliest settlement comes first) and changed the colour scheme to reflect that used historically on maps. Britain gets pink, Spain red, France blue, and I've coloured Argentina light blue. I won't insist on any particular colour scheme - it's just a suggestion - but I find this one historically appropriate. I've also switched the tan to white because I think it looks better.

Now, the question that Justin alluded to earlier. Does the long UK line post-1833 go too far in making a British case for sovereignty? I mean, the fact of 177 years near-unbroken control is part of the British argument for sovereignty, and that long now-pink line does rather put that across quite emphatically - particularly when compared with the much thinner light blue line representing periods of Argentine control. I would welcome others' input on this point. Pfainuk talk 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed some images show facts that are unequivocally arguments for one side (Argentine proximity Image:Argentina.svg or British police and authority File:Falklands-Police.JPG) but they aren't POV as long as all arguments pro and contra are shown as you do in the article. To suppress the images would be a big mistake. --Keysanger 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• expanded to 900px
• lower to 146px
• with all around frame
• pastels (red for Spain and blue for France are too "heavy")

--Keysanger 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another solution --Keysanger 10:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I can go with this version - I prefer the first (though thinking about it, I may move the "none" column to the bottom) - if appropriately placed. If we get cries of POV from some quarters then we can remove it - that's fine. I would suggest it go in the "History of the Claims" section, and that we retain the existing table as well since I think it remains useful. Pfainuk talk 08:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Permanence of settlements in the Falklands Islands timeline in 1982 switches between Argentina and Britain and whilst de facto ownership of the Islands changed due to the war/conflict the British population was not removed from the islands nor did Argentina settle a population. Kiern Moran (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Its nothing to do with ownership, it was about de facto control. A subtle distinction but avoids the disagreement about sovereignty. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo NPOV

I deleted and added some images to obtain a well-balanced NPOV regarding photos.

Photos for Argentine POV:

1. Location of the Falkland Islands
2. A sign at the Argentine-Brazilian border
3. The XXI Unity Summit of the Rio Group
4. Map of the Falkland Islands, with Argentine names

Photos for British POV:

1. Permanence of settlements in the Falklands Islands
2. The UK exercise the sovereignty de facto on the islands
3. Map of European Union in the world
4. Map of the Falkland Islands, with British names

All other photos are, IMHO, NPOV. --Keysanger 15:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

[1] Whilst I doubt the thrust of the edit, if true it would represent a reversal of policy and worth including. Is it? Justin talk 21:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Spain does not support the Argentine claim simply because of the kindness of their hearths: it is part of their strategy to deal with their own soverignty dispute with Britain about the Gibraltar. To state that they don't support Argentina any longer would mean to state that they have given up such strategy. A strong claim. For it, it would be needed to have a strong and specific reference, not a generic reasoning. "Spain and Britain belong to the same international group, therefore Spain accepts all British claims as their own" is not enough, it's closer to original research.

here, during the recent oil dispute, Spain stated their opinion: the European Union, as a group, should not involve itself with the bilateral relations of one of their members with a country that is not part of the group. Therefore, joining the EU does not mean that Spain now supports Britain. here, Spanish ambassador Rafael Estrella made the support to the Argentine claim explicit, and draw the aformentioned paralelism between this case and the one about Gibraltar. MBelgrano (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Spain did ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, which Argentina regards as incompatible with their position (as per the much-discussed Rio Group declaration). If they were particularly strongly supportive of the Argentine position, Spain would not have ratified a treaty that included the Falklands as a BOT without formal reservation. As an aside, the dispute over Gibraltar is slightly different in that Spain disputes the extent of British sovereignty over Gibraltar, not the fact of it.

That said, I do agree. We'd need a rather solid source to make the claim that Spain supports the British side: simply being a member of the EU is insufficient (just as being a member of the Rio Group or OAS is, in and of itself, insufficient to demonstrate support for the Argentine side). On the general point, if countries change sides, my view would tend to be based on the involvement of the country in the dispute. If Bhutan or Niger switched from supporting one side to supporting the other, I don't think many would notice. OTOH, movement by countries like Chile are rightly mentioned. Pfainuk talk 17:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

China

Sorry by poor English. I added references to the effect that China has given strong support to the Argentine claim and Wee Curry Monster remove them, putting that China is neutral without making any reference.--Cêsar (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We would need some non-Argentine (preferably Chinese) sources for that, I believe. Apcbg (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We would need sources by neutrality.--Cêsar (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see: parliament.uk: States which support Falklands self-determination
Latin American countries generally, and all those in MERCOSUR (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with associate members Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Peru) support Argentina’s claims in the sovereignty dispute (although Guatemala also supports the principle of self-determination), along with China, Syria, Tunisia, Congo and Russia.--Cêsar (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see official chinese source: [2]: 5. La Parte china reiteró su firme respaldo al reclamo de soberanía de la República Argentina en la Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas, así como a la reanudación de las negociaciones con el objeto de alcanzar una solución pacífica y definitiva de dicha Cuestión, conforme con lo establecido en las resoluciones pertinentes de las Naciones Unidas.--Cêsar (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it seems to be adequately sourced now. Apcbg (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine its sourced now. I won't revert again. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

James Peck

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs) removed a paragraph I recently added about James Perk receiving not only Argentine citizenship but a Argentine birth certificate in the context of "Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship". I'm sad to see the user didn't ask for other opinions before removing it on basis of being just 'News'. The section of the article talks about the legislation on the subject, and this is the first case in which an islander is granted an Argentine birth certificate, so it's not just news, its an event directly related to the previous paragraph that brings important data (the 'draft' legislation is no longer draft, and it has been made effective in a practical case).

The paragraph is being added in a very particular article and in a very relevant section, and contains references to cites of very different tones (a perhaps partial news article and the answer to it by the Falkland's government) for what I believe follows the NPOV policy. The lack of it signifies we are missing important information and I'd like to reinstall it as soon as possible. If you think it reads as news or lacks of any further information, we can of course work on it .

--Mariano(t/c) 06:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that this might have warranted the sentence "As of June 2011 one Falkland Islander, James Peck,who was married to an Argentinian had availed himself of this right.^[reference]", but no more. However the existing text needs to be updated (unless Peck exercised his rights under a law that had not yet been passed). Martinvl (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that James Perk's citizenship or birth certificate has any importance in a Encyclopedia. In any case not in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Important are facts not (person) names. --Keysanger 08:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the fact that Falkland citizens can apply for an Argentine birth certificate is of no importance in a section that talks about the Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship? It is directly connected to the subject and definitely adds to it. --Mariano(t/c) 09:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In my proposed wording, the name of the individual concerned is of secondary importance - if it were removed from the sentence, the sentence would still make sense. Martinvl (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note the difference between

• On an individual basis, native Falkland Islanders who have declared before the Argentine authorities that they are Argentine, have been recognized as Argentine nationals by birth (current version of the article)
• James Peck,who was married to an Argentinian had availed himself of this right

The first sentence says explicit that, as you state, Falkland citizens can apply for an Argentine birth certificate. It is said. It is a fact and it is already said in the article.

The second sentence is a personal case of Mr. James Perk. What should we do if Mr. Jerk get divorced of his Argentine wife or he travel and stay in Perú for ever? Should we add a little Curriculum Vitae of Mr. James Perk?. Definitely No. The Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute isn't a kind of journal.

There is a dispute between the United Kingdom and Argentina about the rightful sovereignty over the islands located in the South Atlantic Ocean. The article deals with Arguments pro and contra the British/Argentine sovereignty over the islands. That is the issue. Arguments.

Now, if you understand me, you will see that I DO see the importance of the fact that Falkland citizens can apply for an Argentine birth certificate but I see that it is already said in the article and I don't like to add Argentine/British Folklore in the already complicated situation.

If you delete the name J.Perk, the sentence will be only a repetition of the On an individual basis, native Falkland Islanders who have declared before the Argentine authorities that they are Argentine, have been recognized as Argentine nationals by birth. It doesn't make sense. Best regards --Keysanger 10:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we were talking about having or not the fact of Perk's Argentine certificate, and I myself said the wording might need work.

I believe Perk's case is not contemplated in the paragraph you refer to, and is in deed the first case of an Islander to resign British citizenship and obtain an Argentine birth certificate. The event is important in the context of self-identification: one of the main points of the British claim.

But above all this, I think it is crucial to keep the article balanced in order to guaranty neutrality, and this is an event that was given quite some importance in Argentina, with the President symbolically giving the papers in person to Perk. And this is, after all, within the context of the Argentine claim. --Mariano(t/c) 10:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all its James Peck, son of Terry Peck. Secondly, the claim that he is the first is untrue, Alexander Betts did the same in 1982 for example. The press furore was a publicity stunt to co-incide with Liberation Day in the Falkland Islands on June 14. Its a press stunt in an election year, nothing more. WP:NOTNEWS exists for this reason. In a weeks time, it will have been forgotten. The British position is that it is up to the Falkland Islanders to decide their own future, if they decide that lies with Argentina that is their decision, if they wish to retain the link to the UK, that is also their decision. In that respect this event is not in the least bit important. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When a wording was discussed about citizenship in Argentine law, it was rejected because there wasn't any source of a case. Now there it is, and it's not at least important? Well, I think using a draft legislation to induce that islanders are not Argentine naturals is not at least a bit important neither. Anyone can submit a draft, there has been cases of legislators submitting a draft in response to email hoaxes. These articles are awfully biased. pmt7ar ^(talk) 11:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops I updated the article again as I was unaware of this conversation. First, even if it is a breaking news I believe it does have the required notability as per WP:NEWSEVENT:

• It acts as a precedent;
• It has adequate depth of coverage.

Regarding it being a stunt or actually having no legal weight, while I don't discard the possibility I would need to see reliable references for that claim in order for you to block the additions. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, why do you keep removing what other people write as if you had the last word on the subject? I'm sorry, but find it really annoying. You removed twice something that some of us consider important on bases of a vague and non-explained common tag that really says nothing.

I have no clue about the Betts case, perhaps because it is also absent from the encyclopedia (which is again a great loss). I think it is important to explain the Peck case, we could add the involvement of the President (perhaps giving the context of the elections) and refer to the Betts case you name if we have some references. You are currently justifying something with information that is not even available. --Mariano(t/c) 12:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a sovereignty dispute, and whenever people can change their citizenship from one to other, and the presence or absence of case law, is indeed highly on-topic here. "In the news" does not mean that news are out of place simply because they are in the news, so reverting simply citing it is instruction creep Cambalachero (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the real problem ist that in Argentina the Falkland issue is a candent question. There are seldom a week when in the newspapers appers nothing "very important" about the islands. I will mention only some cases:

• the UK has to apologize because of the nukes
• all ships to the islands have to be allowed by the gov. in Buenos Aires
• the OAS asks again for negotiations about sovereignty
• CFK asks Mon Ki Moon for more pressure over UK in order to nogotiate
• Peck becomes Argentine citizen
• CFK thanks Peru for the planes
• CFK says that only falklands fighter will get the Falkland pension

That are only few, read any Argentine newspaper and you will find a lot of "important steps" to the Falklands.

In contrast, in the UK the issue is not very used by the government. It doesn't bring votes by the next election.

Every one, like me, will agree that this "topics" and all others mentioned in the Argentine news are very but very very important in Argentina. My question is: are important for the souvereignty dispute? Should we add every of such discussions of the day to day Argentine politics into the article?. Of course that have to do with the souvereignty dispute, not because it is an argument but because it is part of the Argentine politics regarding the Falklands. I think the article has reached a good level in a complicated case. If we begin to add more Folklore we will sunk the quality. --Keysanger 15:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, I agree. Is that a first by the way, you and I agreeing? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger and everyone, check the global repercussion to the news:

• telegraph.co.uk
• ruvr.ru
• bbc.co.uk
• canada.com/theprovince
• theaustralian.com.au
• thepeninsulaqatar.com
• larazon.es
• saudinewstoday.com

So, clearly this is not the case you are alleging. Moreover, even if it was, the article already has a paragraph about this issue that needs to be updated. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't demonstrate that this isn't a passing news story that will have been almost completely forgotten in a few weeks. Indeed, the possibility of this kind of evidence is precisely why we have WP:NOTNEWS.

The point that some are making, that this demonstrates the possibility of Falkland Islanders becoming Argentine citizens, is already made by the article: "On an individual basis, native Falkland Islanders who have declared before the Argentine authorities that they are Argentine, have been recognized as Argentine nationals by birth." While I think this could be better worded, it does make it clear that Peck is not an isolated incident. I don't see any evidence as this stands that this is of enduring relevance to the dispute as a whole.

(As an aside, it's worth mentioning that Peck would be eligible for Argentine citizenship regardless of his birthplace, having been resident in Buenos Aires since 2006.) Pfainuk talk 17:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference for the statement "On an individual basis ... who have declared ... by birth]] is incorrect. It refers to the draft law whereas this statement refers to an actual occurance. If the references were changed (and there is no need to replicate large chunks of mateial which happears in the source document, except possibly English translations of any Spanish text) then one fo the references could be Peck's taking on of Argetnice citizenship without mentioning him by name in the article. Martinvl (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia Peck's identity adds nothing of any value. If he had been notable himself, it might be different, but so long as the facts are cited to a reliable source it seems invidious for him to be named. Moonraker (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Moonraker. To add to what Pfainuk said, he'd be eligible for Argentine citizenship being married to an Argentine woman and having an Argentine child. As to the claim of global repurcussions? Zzzzzzzzzzz, its a publicity stunt nothing more, there are no global repurcussion, it will be forgotten in a few weeks time. Again he isn't the first, Alexander Betts for example in 1982, you know the Falkland Islander they used to wheel out at the C24? Guess he must be feeling kind of left out at the moment. Neither should be named. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's not important, then be my guest and remove the paragraph about the draft legislation because it's not relevant, it ended in nothing, and it makes the section STINK of pro-UK POV. It's there there just to focus on "Falklanders are not Argentine citizens". I already resigned that section, if you want to know more check the archives with all the arguments, sources and proposals rejected about citizenship under Argentine law, and instead keep an irrelevant document just because it says "are not". pmt7ar ^(talk) 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not only shameful, but a misuse of a source. You only need to check the summary of the main source for the section [3] and what's on the article. The section is about Argentina's position about citizenship, and the source says: "Por lo tanto, para nuestra ley, los nativos de esas islas son argentinos". That is nowhere on the article, a not very neutral omission if you ask me. But the source does mention "De aprobarse el presente proyecto, la legislación argentina establecerá que, mientras dure la ocupación ilegal de las islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, el principio de “nacionalidad natural” no será aplicable a quien haya nacido o nazca en tales territorios, a menos que requiera se lo admita como argentino/a nativo/a.", and it was not approved, so its just air. In a nutshell: we have a section that does NOT state the position of citizenship as seen by Argentina (despite that being the HEADER of the subsection), and that only includes an hypothetical situation from a draft that never came true. I'm sorry if I doubt some editors but I can't help see some serious neutrality issues. I struggled a lot on this issue and proposed several ways to state citizenship as seen by UK, Argentina and international law, all the cards over the table as neutrality demands, yet in the article there is only the UK POV and the international' (de facto's) (and yes, an argentine legislative draft never passed that is useful only because it was misworded to express "Falklanders are not Argentine citizens"). pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Those claiming this is passing news and Argentine politic manoeuvring are forgetting two important things: If he's the first Falklander to receive Argentine birth certificate, then the event is notable (previously only the possibility is described, not that it actually happened) and is not passing news as he'd stay the first (much as Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen's birth is not passing news).

Secondly, the fact that Argentina's government put emphasis in this kind of things is relevant, and it's the only way to express the importance given to the subject by the people (politics wouldn't be personally handling birth certificates otherwise) and thus to the foreign politics of the country. Again, Argentines might be biased by the propaganda of it's country, but denying the inclusion of this kind of facts based on the importance assigned by non-necesarly-so-neutral English speaking world is definitely worse, and is the main problem with several related articles. --Mariano(t/c) 06:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat, what I have already pointed out three times now. HE IS NOT THE FIRST. I add the emphasis as there seems to be a somewhat childish tendency to refuse to listen.

I'll also repeat, WP:NOTNEWS, this is an encyclopedia not a news channel. The moment I hear accusations of bias flying about, well I respond that you are allowing your POV to cloud your judgement. Its passing news, its a publicity stunt and like many publicity stunts over this year we don't include everyone => WP:NOTNEWS is the reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I really think we are not understanding ourselves; I said it before but we just choose to ignore it: please do read what I have to say instead of covering your ears and yelling.

When you go through the process of naturalization to become an Argentine citizen you are given a national identity document (DNI). Naturalized persons are not exactly the same as Argentine born people since they cannot be president, nor can their children become naturalized Argentines if they are not born in the country.

Perk, on the other hand, was given an Argentine birth certificate. He was not eligible for it because he lived in Argentina for more than 2 years married to an Argentine person (he could have applied for naturalization) but was declare Argentine by birth.

Now, I don't know if that's the case for this Betts guy. Do you have any reference to that case? You are calling the Argentine media lairs, ignoring anything we are trying to explain here without even actually reading what we say, and deciding that this even is passing news without argumenting it. The Falkland war was also a publicity stunt, yet it is quite encyclopaedic. So if the article is discussing what a Falklander could or not do, an example of it (probably the first according the Argentine media) is anything but irrelevant. --Mariano(t/c) 09:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Peck, you can't even get his name right. Corrected twice now.

I have read what you wrote and its not so much a matter of not understanding, you refuse to listen to a point repeatedly made. Google translation of Betts' interview. I find it surprising in the extreme, given that how often Betts has been wheeled out that neither you nor the Argentine media have heard of him. He ain't the first.

As you acknowledge this is a publicty stunt, then WP:NOTNEWS clear applies. How many stunts has Christina done this year over the Falklands, what with it being an election year? I'm sure Mr Peck's exhibition will do very nicely too. But it isn't suitable encyclopedic content. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A photo of the Atlantic Ocean, where the Falkland islands are located (up rigtht, a little bit out of the photo)

Pmt7ar says now that the whole section STINK of pro-UK POV.

I propouse him to cool down, read the article and the discussion thread again and try to establish facts and to confront with the current version of the article:

1. Are Falklanders Argentine citizens?
2. Is Peck new ID-card a new argument in the dispute?

It is a fact that Falklanders are not Argentine citizens. They could be if ...., but the are not. I repeat. They are not Argentine citizens. And that is written in the article. Seemingly, Pmt7ar doesn't like this fact and want to change the facts writing that ... (God knows it).

Peck's new ID-card is no new argument. It is another trick to obtain attention. Take a look to this news: La reina del carnaval de Gualeguaychú se robó el protagonismo de la cumbre. It was in all world newspapers, she earn a lot of money, Berlusconi looked her butt, Chavez talked with her, etc, etc, etc. It was all hollow words. Argentina lost before the International Court of Justice. The mill pulp are still working.

Don't be surprised if tomorrow you get a good looking nacked Argentine Model (person) walking in Trafalgar Square with a banner Las Malvinas son Argentinas!!!. Will be that a new argument? should be write about her butt? The article deals with arguments of a dispute and it is not a journal.

I want to hint that in few months there will be presidential eleccions in Argentina and they will beat the Malvinas-drum as few times before. Today (17.June) La Nacion bring 3 articles (at least) about the issue:

• http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1382226-cont-malvinas-dura-embestida-presidencial
• http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1382314-malvinas-lo-cortes-no-quita-lo-valiente
• http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1382229-con-cameron-se-altero-el-dialogo

Best regards, --Keysanger 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Justin, Keysanger; I have no clue what you are talking about.

• The link to Alexander Betts' interview doesn't mention him getting Argentine citizenship nor birth certificate
• You do not acknowledge the difference between obtaining citizenship and obtaining birth certificate
• You do not present any evidence that any other Falkland national ever obtained an Argentine birth certificate.
• You decided that the Peck's case is non relevant based on the sole fact that it appeared in Argentine media, and that it's an election year.
• You've chosen insult the proposition I'm making (and thus also me) instead of giving any valid arguments.

Please, do consider these points. --Mariano(t/c) 13:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mariano,

You are the only one that insists about Peck. Pmt7ar don't care about the Pecks case and the Bett's case is the same game. ID-Card or birth certificate, in Argentine media or in British media. It doesn't matter. There is no new argument there, it is only a trick to demand more attention for the Cause célèbre Malvinas. Best regards, --Keysanger 19:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Keysanger for answering. I understand that the event might not deserve a full paragraph. It is just the question of whether this is the first such cases or not. If it is a short sentence such as "on June 2011 the first Falklander got his/her Argentine birth certificate" with a link to the pice should definitelly be there. Unluckily you (I mean plural you) are ruling out this small peice with some wrongful information, such as that Peck was eligible for Argentine birth certificate because he has lived in Argentine for more than 2 years (that would allow him to become a naturalized citizen, which is not the same[4], I do know that first hand).

I think you do agree that, if he is indeed the first one to be considered as "born in Argentina" it clears up the previous paragraph of the law not being conclusive, and that it does set a presedent.

Now, it might not look important to you, but I think it does make a difference in this context. And it has been very frustraiting for me to try to get you to listen to me without throwing away my arguments with prejudgements or simply ignoring them. --Mariano(t/c) 14:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the point that such a thing - a person being considered Argentine based on birth in the Falklands - both is possible and has happened is relevant. If it wasn't already mentioned by the article I would not object to adding a mention in this section. But it is already mentioned and, as others have noted, Peck is not the first person to have claimed Argentine nationality based on birth in the Falkland Islands. He's just the one that CFK decided to make a song and dance about recently. This particular case appears to me to be less relevant and I don't see why it to be included over and above the general statement that such a thing is possible: we have no particular evidence nor reason to assume that this is more enduring than simply passing news. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk, it is handled right now in an appropriate manner - though three cites for the same fact are a little over the top. How many times do I have to make the point he isn't the first, until someone drops the stick and steps away from the deceased equine. I would point out however that screaming about the "Stench of Pro-British POV" is a sure fire way to be ignored. Publicity stunts per WP:NOTNEWS are not worth column inches, its already being forgotten. Though I imagine the vegetable farmers in the islands are breathing a sigh of relief. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you said he's not the first a couple of times, but you failed to give me any reference to that fact. I will try to rephrase the existing paragraph when I get some free time. Cheers, --Mariano(t/c) 22:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A reference was added to the article today by User:Langus-TxT, he isn't the first. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Finally! That was exactly what I think was missing: actual referenced examples of people already going that path. It's a pity though that we lost so much time for this. Thanks Langus for actually taking the time to do this. --Mariano(t/c) 11:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, Mariano. It's a pity that these discussions are so geared towards opinions. If we'd include more references when talking, this place would be so much quieter. -- Langus (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And of course discussions proceed a lot smoother, when people listen, that way we don't lose so much time. And of course screaming bias, suppression, censorship etc don't help, whilst at the same time repeating the same point and ignoring what is put to you. I supplied you a very similar reference above, you merely quibbled about what it meant. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Justin. The reference you gave me before doesn't even talk about citizenship. Also, the wrongful information about Peck being eligible just because he lived in Argentina more than 2 years was used to refute my position, and the rest basically attacked my idea crying POV from Argentine media without giving any valid referenced argument. You not only failed to understand my point but you still claim I was the one not listening. In any case, I'm glad it's over. --Mariano(t/c) 17:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think, unless there is any further content disagreement, that it would be a good idea to close this thread at this stage. If there is still on-topic discussion to be had, please feel free to remove the tags as appropriate. Pfainuk talk 20:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverts

As I expected... all my edits reverted. Neutrality? Geez. Don't mess things, I don't care about the Pecks case, this has nothing to do with the propaganda in a election year. This is the same warring as before and all I edit is erroneous or incorrect data about Argentine' position. Want to be on topic, go back to the discussion on the three postures (UK, Argentine and international). I'll edit it again. And please desist of manipulating and owning the article. What's this? Removing a template asking for more information without saying a word? First, I add a template of here: Argentine nationality legislation is inconclusive with respect to the Islanders. Who says that? Where? In fact, the legislation is quite straightforward: constitution+law 346, plain and simple. But I desisted to write anything on the article because it's already owned, so I won't add any text. Second, I'll remove the second paragraph until someone tell me why that draft is relevant. I wrote about it before, it's there out of context and relevancy only to quote "islanders are NOT Argentine". Those are two valid edits, don't revert it just like that. And just in case, I talk about the Argentine position, not the "fact" reality. Under Argentine legislation, as seen by Argentina, Argentine's position. pmt7ar ^(talk) 14:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC) A reminder, if the subsection is Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship, it's expected to be Argentine-POV, that's about it (a subsection about Argentina's position). pmt7ar ^(talk) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you removed cited content per my edit summary. If you wish to dispute this by all means add a suitable tag if you wish. But do not remove content and add a tag at the same time in order to later complain about the removal of the tag. And you might like to read comments in various essays, since those complaining about POV are usually complaining because it doesn't represent their POV; the purpose of wikipedia is to present a neutral summary per WP:NPOV.

I trust we won't see any further edit warring behaviour? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What? Don't you know how to edit? I think it was an ABC to wikipedia, don't use just revert, use Edit if there's constructive edit. Anyhow, what cited content did I remove? I didn't remove any source or reference, I removed an irrelevant text. Can you explain me why that source is relevant? That paragraph was based on the draft part of the document, not on the analysis. Please explain me why is relevant the portion I deleted before adding it again. I know very well WP:NPOV, that's why I'm arguing about the POV push and wording used on that section, going out of topic -a subsection about Argentine position without the Argentine position but with irrelevant draft proyects conveniently against it- (I'll edit two times in case you're too lazy to use Edit button) pmt7ar ^(talk) 15:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring, I will report it if you remove this content again. There is a warning to that effect on your talk page. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And could you PLEASE answer? If you have time to revert, why don't you explain me what is "cited content"? Why is it relevant? Why do you remove a {fact} template without fulfilling it? You just revert, you put a nice template inviting to discuss in talkpage but you don't use the talkpage. Don't talk about warring, I bring the subject of the draft relevancy pushing POV on the talkpage before any edit, you ignored it completely, I was bold and edited it. And all you do is revert, without addressing the question at all. Discuss it.pmt7ar ^(talk) 16:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I did answer, the text you removed was cited, thats why I reverted your "bold" change. The relevent guideline is WP:BRD, you appear to have chosen to edit war, taking it to the limit but certainly not within the spirit of WP:3RR. The current text was achieved as a consensus, reflecting the policies of WP:NPOV, I oppose your changes as giving greater emphasis to one of two competing national narratives. As to the rest, I have explained that it is not relevant per WP:NOTNEWS, it is not encyclopedic content. If you wish to offer a counter argument, then do so, but please don't scream about "STINK OF PRO-BRITISH POV" as you will be justifiably ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pmt7ar, Hi Wee,

we have already 14 edits today. I think it is enough edit for the whole weekend. I would recommend solo por hoy of Jimmy Bosch to relax. Salsa at its finest. Best Regards, --Keysanger 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He did not reply ANYTHING regarding my edit. Is he just ignoring me or what? What do I care about the Peck Beck Betts guy whatever, I didn't even know he existed until a few days. Again, DISCUSS my edits instead of reverting them. I made TWO edits:

(1) I ask for a source where it says the legislation is inconclusive. This is false, and I submitted on the edit summary three sources, primary and secondary stating the contrary. (2) Removed a paragraph for irrelevancy. The unapproved draft out of context to push POV. Are you telling there is a consensus to keep an irrelevant draft never passed as to the current "Argentine position"? Even taking HALF the space dedicated to the subsection?. I have decided not to write anything myself on the article just because of that, but I have arguments to remove that paragraph for undue weight and relevancy, and I have right (I think) to request with {fact} someone to confirm a statement. Wee Curry Monster is not showing any collaboration in the edit, despite inviting so at my talkpage. If he doesn't want to discuss should I take it to a noticeboard? pmt7ar ^(talk) 22:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, some one deleted the Spanish text of the reference. You are looking for that:

Frente a esta situación de hecho, es claro que la ley no puede considerar a los nacidos en las islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, de igual manera que a los nacidos en Jujuy, Córdoba o Chubut. No porque las islas no formen — al igual que dichas provincias — parte del territorio nacional, sino porque las islas están sujetas a leyes y autoridades extranjeras or

Mal podría pretenderse que se aplicara a los nacidos en las Malvinas el artículo 75, inciso 11 de la Constitución de la Nación Argentina cuando, de hecho, esa Constitución no rige en las islas y las autoridades argentinas no pueden hacer nada para imponerla

That means that the law is inconclusive. Don't forget to indent correctly your contribution. Thank you. Best regards, --Keysanger 11:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the English translation inadequate? If so, please improve the English translation. Given its size, it is in my view inappropirate to include the Spanish text, after all it is properly referenced and can easily be accessed by those who are interested. What is more important however is to explain what this text is and where and when it was published. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You can improve the article so far as you can. Delete or add maps and paragraphs, reorder the text, etc. I will support you if the idea is ok. But the thema is very controversial and, as you may noted, often your changes are reverted, therefore it is better to explain the changes in the talk page, get consensus AND THEN operate over the article. If you insist you will begin a edit war, that is one of most stupid things under persons that are writing a text.

You deleted the map of the european union. Well, I announced long time ago in the Talk page why I put it there. It was a change with consensus. It is very hard to agree about such a issue, more over internet, because there is no personal communication, only few words and sentences that can be easily mistaken. Will you delete the map again? Will you begin a edit war or will you read in the discussion the reasons why I put it there?.

In my honest opinion, whatsever you want to do in Wikipedia, build (or destroy), do it with consensus. It lasts longer. Read the article and the history of the article, read also the discussion, try to understand why there is the map or the word "claim" and not "position" (I think "position" is better and hope other people doesn't blame your change) and suggest your changes in the talk page before act.

In my opinion the original Spanish text from the Argentine Senat is neccesary. The series of Falkland articles in the en:WP are read also by Spanish speaking people who are nauseated of others martial, unilateral, nationalistic WPs. Therefore, the Spanish original is needed. Best regards, --Keysanger 16:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, I would always include both the original Spanish and the translation in any quote - I believe this may well be policy but can't for the life of me think where I read it. My Spanish is far from perfect and someone can always correct my work later. So I would agree with inclusion of both.

As to the maps, I still have reservations about their inclusion. Though I disagreed with their inclusion it was a consensus decision to incorporate them, so whilst I support removal I wouldn't do it unless there is agreement. I personally believe they don't add a great deal to the article and there is endless bickering over the position of individual countries.

I would also use claim, in preference to position as that is in fact the wording Argentina uses. Argentina claims the Falklands. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

About the use of the draft, now tagged, I already explained my point. (1) it's overweighted, taking half the subsection being (2) irrelevant since its a bill now 8 years old never passed. Why it is important to describe a draft that never applied -and it's unlikely to ever do- AS the Argentine position (implying so, thus pushing the POV of that draft). It's like using bills 2452-D-2010 and 2579-D-2010 (request for popular suffrage) on an subsection describing the Argentine position about same sex marriages, pushing the idea that overcomed the strong opposition and taking half the space (being the reality the opposite). I think the second paragraph should be completely removed, as there is no use and no value of describing a draft never passed as the country' position regarding citizenship. pmt7ar ^(talk) 18:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not able to find a date for the bill, nor any clear evidence of its passage or lack thereof. Forgive me if I'm being dim, but do you mind providing evidence of this? In particular, would I be correct in the assumption that the Argentine proyecto de ley is equivalent to the French projet de loi - that is in the equivalent British terms a "bill" rather than an "act"? Pfainuk talk 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point in time I see no reason for removal of that content, as it is cited per WP:RS and conforms to WP:V and was achieved as a WP:CONSENSUS - one you'll remember I disagreed with to a great extent. I am waiting to be convinced by the strength of argument but find myself accused of POV defending a text I objected to but which I accept as WP:CONSENSUS. I personnally would not object to the removal of the whole section, seeing as to my mind there is a considerable degree of legal theory and conjecture involved, which sits uneasily in any encyclopedic context. I will just re-iterate that don't be surprised if no one listens when you bandy bad faith accusations about. Lets some sources to back up your claims. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The map in question is a map of the EU, demonstrating the fact that the Falklands are one of the overseas countries and territories of the European Union (as per various European treaties). It is not a map of supporters of the British position, and I would oppose inclusion of such a map. In this case, I am fairly indifferent.

I also think that the word "claim" is appropriate, and there's no particular need to avoid it. The sense that the IP notes as passing judgement is different from the sense we're using here (notably, we're using the word as a noun whereas the sense cited uses it as a verb). That's not to say that I'm wedded to it, which is why I didn't revert the change to "position".

In terms of translations, see WP:NONENG for the rule concerned. It does not require that the source be quoted (except where requested by other editors), but any quote given should be provided both in the original and in translation. I think this is a sensible rule. Pfainuk talk 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(reply to Pfainuk) proyecto de ley that I was addressing as draft legislation (as it was on the article) certainly is a bill, not an act or law. It's just a "proposal" that entered the congress but it was what we call "boxed" (never attended, or closed). The bill was submitted on 2003 and was derived since then to a commission, so its not currently on the parliament. You can check the status on www.hcdn.gov.ar using the searcher (direct link [5]). For practical purposes, the bill proposes a change of nationality law 346, which if you check it right now it was not applied, neither appeared on the official bulletin since 2003, so never passed (and if so, it would appear on the HCDN site). A bill, though proposed by a legislator, aren't decisive at all. There are bills made by legislators' rants (there was a couple when same sex marriage was disputed), some with copy&paste from Wikipedia, and even a bill included an exact copy&paste from an email hoax. So a bill without passing any reading in congress can be anything. Therefore, I doubt its weight using half the already small subsection describing just a "proposal" that never read in the congress AS relevant of the argentine position. pmt7ar ^(talk) 21:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the proposed law has some valuable information, and consist in itself a reliable source. Its summary reads:

"Argentine Constitution establishes that Falkland Islands […] are "integral part of national territory". At the same time, laws about nationality consider Argentine to everyone that "is born in the territory of the Republic". Therefore, to our laws, people born in those islands are Argentine.

The fact that they accept British nationality doesn't affect its natural nationality. Since law 23,059 (1984) was passed, native argentines don't lose their nationality when accepting that of a foreign country.

[…] In the case of this bill being passed, argentine legislation will establish that, as long as the illegal occupation of the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur islands remains, the principle of "natural nationality" will not apply to those who are born there, unless he or she requires to be recognized as argentine born."

Therefore, to my understanding, second paragraph is correct and the first one is distorted.

@Pfainuk: I realize my mistake now (the IP was me). Still, although there is no reason to replace it here, there's also no reason for not doing it, and I thank you for noting that. Revertions are indeed irritating... -- Langus (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't say it's incorrect, but that it's irrelevant and over weighted. As you say, we're citing how it "would be" "in the case of this bill being passed", a bill that only was presented at the front desk and derived to a commission years ago, it never reached any chamber so I don't know exactly how is useful to describe its effects, taking half a subsection and under the header of "Argentine position". pmt7ar ^(talk) 03:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the above statement, it appears that too much weight is being put on the bill. If this proposal is to be mentioned, then the political position needs to be clarified as it is by no means self-evident. In saying this, may I point out that in the UK, if a bill does not finish all of its stages in a particular parliament, then the process must be re-started. This is not the case in the State of Indiana where the Indiana Pi Bill has been lying around since 1897! Read that article for a good laugh. Seriously though, is the Argentine bill a minority proposal that will simply wither on the vine, or is it making progress through the Argentine legislative process? Martinvl (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is worried about the first paragraph being incorrect? I'll look for news regarding the bill. -- Langus (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see too much weight here, Pmt7ar wants the article to state the Argentine position is that the islanders are Argentine citizens. However, this is not true and even if that were the Argentine position, it is beholden per NPOV to put out this is rejected by the islanders and it is dubious in international law to impose citizebship with all the implications for military service etc. This all came out the last time this was discussed. I question whether we need this section at all. So do we actually need this section? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"However, this is not true" --> FALSE -- Langus (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I must say, I am inclined, based on the evidence I have seen, to accept that including an explicit mention of this bill - as opposed to referencing it for other information - is probably too much weight. I'd be interested in the answer to Martin's question, though this is more a matter of Argentine parliamentary process as it is of practical importance (we're not going to say that pi might be 3.2 in Indiana). If it had become law, it would obviously be a different matter. Pfainuk talk 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this bill really like the Indiana Pi Bill - as far as the Argentine Government is concerned it is a dead duck, or is it something that the Argentive Government secretly agree with but cannot do so publically lest the they are taken them to task by the electorate. If the former, we are justified in removing it, if the latter, then it warrants a mention, but with the caveat that it is a bill that is still in progress. Martinvl (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is the latter, from my memory of the discussion last time this came up. I must admit to being ambivalent though about including this bill. Just to remind everyone I reverted the removal of cited text that was included as consenus the last time this was discussed. I would have no problem with either Martinvl or Pfainuk's proposal if there is a consensus to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As almost three days passed with no comments, I proceed to remove the second paragraph for overweight and relevancy, given the arguments that is a bill stalled for years that never started the parliamentary process, thus its irrelevant misleading showing it as the Arg position. Editors have agree that its over weighted Pfainuk [6], Martinvl [7] (side comment: as there is no source of it being agreed secretly by the government, I assume your position as the former), and even WCM [8], who even proposed a removal including this paragraph. No opinions appeared defending the relevancy to mention the effects of this bill. As the discussion continues focused on the first paragraph (the "inconclusive"), I think we could close this now. No reference or anything is removed (the ref is tagged and used also on the previous paragraph) and it has no relation with the previous paragraph (both are from the same source, but unrelated parts. we should use the analysis of the current state and no the proposal WP:CBALL). pmt7ar ^(talk) 20:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion in Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Second proposal. --Keysanger 22:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

I see some people are liberally sprinkling tags against cited information. Unless they actually enunciate what their problem is, I give notice I will be removing them. 17:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussing is right above, and it's going on. The tags simply reflect that there is such a discussion. They may be removed, once the discussion is settled Cambalachero (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You've made no attempt to discuss them that I can see. We've seen an attempt to remove cited cite, based on the accusation of a "stench of Pro-British POV", which doesn't correspond to any form of content discussion in line with WP:CIVIL, the abuse of tags can be considered WP:DE. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't tergiverse my comments. I may have expressed uncivilly, but that was a personal opinion, NOT the reason to my edits, don't lie. I have exposed the reasons why I removed the second paragraph and why I'm in disagree with the wording on the first paragraph. Continue the discussion above. pmt7ar ^(talk) 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I made plain my response to your comments, if you don't wish to be ignored then express yourself in a civil manner. There is never any excuse for being uncivil, describing it as a personal opinion is no excuse. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not involve myself in the discussion, I simply saw that there is a discussion (and the replies make it self-evident that it is an ongoing discussion). "Drive-by tagging" is when there is no discussion, not when the tag is added by someone uninvolved in the discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I will give you the benefit of the doubt but I saw no attempt at a discussion more of a bad tempered rant. This is not discussion but WP:DE and adding tags to back up an editor who is being grossly uncivil could also be considered disruptive. I'll await to see if the discussion becomes constructive. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The map

One of the most common arguments of the Argentine claim/position is that the islands are only few kilometers of continental Argentine, some kind of "matter of course" argument. The text of Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article describes the argument with following words:

The islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.

This argument is underlined by the little map File:LocationFalklandIslands.png.

The EU-map shows the consequences of the historical development of Europa. The european expansion leads to the build of Latinamerican countries but also to european enclaves all around the world. Such positions are, for exmaple, St Pierre and Miquelon right few "meters" from the Canadian coast. (See more under List of enclaves and exclaves or Special member state territories and the European Union).

The Irony of the Argentine argument is that the Argentine Isla Martín García (34°11′S 58°16′W) is surrounded by Uruguayan territorial waters in the Río de la Plata. In addition, the Argentine islands of Apipé (27°30′S 56°54′W) and Entre Ríos are surrounded by Paraguayan territorial waters in the Paraná River, as are some small islets. But that is other story.

I insist to keep the map in the article. --Keysanger 17:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@wee, @pfainuk: I may remember you that the en:WP rules state that you can agree or refuse a proposal, there is no third alternative. If you keep silent you agree the proposal. --Keysanger 17:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the differences between the United Kingdom and Argentina regarding the Falkland Islands - it is not about the EU. The map concerned has no place in this article. Martinvl (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The other ironies of mentioning the 1958 Convention include the fact that Argentina never actually ratified that convention and that even if they had, geographic proximity was not, in and of itself, considered by that convention to be grounds to claim sovereignty over an inhabited territory controlled by another state. Otherwise Japan would be part of Russia and Malta would be part of Italy and Sri Lanka would be part of India and so on through literally dozens of examples. It's such a bad argument legally that I was concerned when it went in that including it might appear to discredit the Argentine position. But if it is an argument made by Argentina and her supporters then it belongs.

As a general rule, you can accept or refuse a proposal, but you may also make a counterproposal to improve the article. It's not a flat yes or no, otherwise things would never improve. For my part, I gave my position on the map above:

• I oppose any attempt to map the countries that support one side or other, as this is very difficult to get a clear position on. But this is not such a map.
• I am indifferent to this map of the EU and its ORs and OCTs. I have no problem with its going in, and I have no problem with its being left out. Pfainuk talk 20:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger, I think I've made it plain that I oppose the inclusion of your map. However, I acknowledge it was inserted by consensus and as such I will defend its continued inclusion until a new consensus emerges. TBH I have no strong feelings either way. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Martinvl: you say "it is not about the EU". I am surprised at your lack of knowledge of the matter. The Falklands islands belong to Europe.

I see (and saw) the question as a balance between the Argentine pictures and the British pictures. I think that we should preserve the equilibrium between both stances. If we delete the picture of the Union Jack in the police station then we should delete also the "Las Malvinas son argentinas"-photo and so on:

Photos for Argentine POV:

1. Location of the Falkland Islands
2. A sign at the Argentine-Brazilian border
3. The XXI Unity Summit of the Rio Group
4. Map of the Falkland Islands, with Argentine names

Photos for British POV:

1. Permanence of settlements in the Falklands Islands
2. The UK exercise the sovereignty de facto on the islands
3. Map of European Union in the world
4. Map of the Falkland Islands, with British names

Keysanger 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Keysanger wrote "@Martinvl: you say "it is not about the EU". I am surprised at your lack of knowledge of the matter. The Falklands islands belong to Europe." Please justify/clarify your assertion about the Falkland Islands belonging to Europe or withdraw your statement "I am surprised at your lack of knowledge". Martinvl (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No ones knows every thing about the Falklands, but in order to discuss rationally you have to read the whole article at least. Please take a little bit time and read the article again specially following subsection:

===Supporters of the British claim===

The European Union classes the islands as a special overseas territory, subject to EU law in some areas, and eligible for some European funding initiatives. The inclusion of the islands in an appendix to the proposed European Constitution provoked a hostile Argentine response. Its mention is retained in the treaty replacing the abandoned Constitution, the Treaty of Lisbon.

That means explicit, that the islands are part of Europa as overseas territories.

Do not forget that we discuss here the image/map inclusion. Do you have a better solution for the 8 pictures?. I would like to delete the last two maps with A./B. names (4/4) and the sign at the Brazilian border/B. police station (2/2). Best regards, --Keysanger 09:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now looked at the article as a whole and appreciate that you attempted to get a balance of pictures for both sides. Unfortunately the map of the EU appears directly under the heading "Supporters of the British claim". The eye is drawn from the heading to the map and the readers will ask "Is that all?" Later in the article, mention is made of the Commonwealth support (apart from some Caribbean islands) and the significance of the map is effectively hidden in the small print. In short, the choice of "picture" was poor and it's positioning worse because it conveyed the wrong message. If you feel it necessary to have a one-for-one parity in for and against pictures, I would remove the EU map (because it conveys the wrong message) and the XXI Unity Summit of the Rio Group picture (because it does not convey any message until one reads the fine print) and even then it is a group of nameless people, so does not add anything to the article. I am quite happy with the remaining six pictures. Martinvl (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

May be, may be not. At the moment are going on edit wars. So lets wait for a better moment. --Keysanger 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"the Argentine nationality legislation is inconclusive with respect to the Islanders" dubious?

The objeted sentence is clearly supported by the Project of law.

In his summary the document of the Argentine Senat says:

SUMARIO

La Constitución Nacional establece que las islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos e insulares correspondientes “son parte integrante del territorio nacional”. A la vez, las leyes sobre nacionalidad consideran argentinos a todos los que “nazcan en el territorio de la República”. Por lo tanto, para nuestra ley, los nativos de esas islas son argentinos.

El hecho de que ellos acepten la nacionalidad británica no altera su nacionalidad natural. En efecto, desde la sanción de la ley 23.059 (1984), los argentinos nativos no pierden su nacionalidad por el hecho de aceptar la de un Estado extranjero.

La legislación vigente omite (english for "fails" or "miss") considerar la especial condición de aquellos que han nacido en una porción ilegalmente ocupada del territorio nacional, y que se consideran súbditos del poder ocupante.

Esa laguna (eng. for "lagoon" or better "vacuum") podría ser usada para aparentar una contradicción entre lo que nuestro país sostiene en sus reclamos de soberanía y lo que establece su legislación interna.

En efecto, la Argentina no acepta que se sujete la solución del conflicto argentinobritánico a los “deseos” de los isleños, a quienes considera súbditos británicos.

...

We can read that there is a failure (omite) and a vacuum (laguna) and that "los nativos de esas islas son argentinos (Falklanders are Argentine) but they are considered "súbditos británicos" (object of the British crown).

How should we describe the the facts expressed by a well educated lawyer, historian and free elected member of the Argentine parlament? . Other words will be "chaotic" or "disatrous". I prefer "inconclusive".

The fact that the proyect didn't become law is irrelevant because the article describes the situation of the Argentine law not the solution of the problem.

Best regards, --Keysanger 18:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any inconclusiveness. "Por lo tanto, para nuestra ley, los nativos de esas islas son argentinos". That is a fact, current state. Under argentine legislation Falklanders are Argentine. On the "'La legislación vigente omite'" it means to omit, that the particular case is undefined (i.e. there is no explicit legislation in case of those born on territory under foreign control). That doesn't invalidate the general, broader legislation mentioned earlier. Also being subject of a foreign power doesn't invalidate nationality or citizenship. We have another secondary source presented on Falkland Islands talkpage (this discussion was once before last year, now it's on archive 9), a paper from an university [9] (de acuerdo al Derecho Positivo de la Argentina son Ciudadanos de la Nación Argentina por el solo hecho de nacer en su territorio, siguiendo el principio de "Ius soli", y son ciudadanos del Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte, por consanguinidad; en consonancia con el principio de "Ius sanguinis").

What's with that "well educated lawyer, historian and free elected member"? argumentum ad verecundiam? Does being a free elected deputy proposing a bill based on a email hoax relevant? You say the article describes the situation of the Argentine law (i.e. what you and I just quoted bold) but that's not on the article; what's on the article is the proposed "solution", then you agree it's irrelevant. Why are we explaining an hypothetical solution as the position?. We have an useful source for the analysis part, but we aren't using it, just describing the proposal. pmt7ar ^(talk) 19:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to refresh what I removed completely and was reverted, this is the paragraph taking half a subsection:

Draft legislation has been submitted before the Argentine Senate and Congress in order to regulate this citizenship issue by explicitly stipulating — with no prejudice to the Argentine sovereignty claim — that the Falklanders are not Argentine citizens, providing at the same time for native Islanders who declare themselves Argentine to be recognized as Argentine nationals by birth, and for those born elsewhere but resident in the Islands for at least two years to be eligible for Argentine naturalization

What's NOT bold fails to mention that it NEVER reached the Senate, was never read on any of the two chambers. It was just archived at the front desk and derived to a commission frozen now 8 years. And what IS bold, is exactly the "solution" and the proposal that Keysanger agree is not the relevant part. What we agree is relevant, in the bill and the secundary source, and even the primary, is that "are argentine" that is so rejected on this wiki. The complete paragraph acts like a footnote to underweight the previous (also with "inconclusive", "on a particular basis"), it looks incidentally too much UK-POV to show it as the Argentine POV. pmt7ar ^(talk) 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you posted the same walls of text the last time. It failed to convince as it was brought to your attention that the reality of legal opinion is far from conclusive. I see this section as of little benefit and I'm going to propose we remove the whole thing, as it is basically an academic exercise in legal navel gazing. Lets see what the opinions are. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose to remove the section on the Argentine position on citizenship. Its an entirely academic exercise for one, you can't state only the Argentine position without offering a myriad of legal opinions and as a legal navel gazing exercise it is of no net benefit to the article. Please indicate you agreement or otherwise below. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If the Argentine has issued a definitive statement on citizenship, it should be included, however discussion of a piece of legislation that is still in progress amounts to WP:CRYSTAL, unless the probablilty of it being adopted is high. Martinvl (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it has, I presume you mean the Argentine Government. The whole section seems to fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL, which is why I'm proposing to remove it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree pmt7ar ^(talk) 21:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course I agree, I removed it first. I prefer to be no mention at all and fall in neutrality issues that keep a false and misleading section. I don't know if you checked the archive on Falkland Islands talkpage, but on early 2010 I participated on a discussion to include ALL positions about citizenship: UK', Argentina', islanders (basically rejecting argentina's) and international law. That was the most neutral approach IMO, to hear all voices. For some reason any change was rejected and now I found this subsection with the problems I mentioned. I'm support 100% deleting it all, and at least left noticed lack of neutrality than keep it like that misleading Argentina' POV as if it where pro-UK or unimportant. As I said I won't ever change or edit the content on an owned article, so if there's a chance to "correct" something be deleting I'll go with it. pmt7ar ^(talk) 21:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agree --Keysanger 21:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I find the subsection very interesting, neutral and well documented. But if Pmt7ar doesn't agree, It could be that I am wrong and I prefer to delete the subsection. --Keysanger 21:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree --Langus (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are we going the path of deletion when we can correct the section? Second paragraph is correct but about a bill that has unknown status: delete it. First paragraph is about Argentina's current position about citizenship: we can correct that, since the summary of the bill has that information. "If the Argentine has issued a definitive statement on citizenship, it should be included", well it has. Read about James Peck, read the summary of the bill, and there's no room for doubt. Removing sourced, relevant information is not in the spirit of WP. Try to fix problems instead of deleting. -- Langus (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I explained the rationale for it above. With respect, where has Argentina issued a definitive statement about the islanders status? Most statements I'm aware of, dismiss them as "squatters", "piratas" and "usurpadors" with no rights whatsoever. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your rationale is basically "lets delete it because it's too complicated". It is also related to the concern I indicate below (disputing claims). Your unsourced statements are false. -- Langus (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No that is not the case at all, if you have a source for your claim, bring it to the discussion. Continuing to launch personal attacks is not helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rodolfo Terragno, Bill S-1.640/03, summary section. -- Langus (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

An opinion, not what was asked for, your statement was Argentine Government policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an analysis of Argentine law from an Argentine senator. I'm getting really, really tired of your games. -- Langus (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I would instinctively say that Argentina's position on the islanders' status is a useful and significant point to put across here. If that position is unclear or contradictory, then there's no reason why we can't say that, provided that we can demonstrate it. And it does seem a touch unbalanced to on one hand mention the islanders' British citizenship while on the other ignore the fact that individual islanders have used the fact of their birth on the islands to obtain Argentine citizenship.

That said, I accept that none of this is based on weight from reliable sources, and will not attempt to block a consensus whichever way it goes. Pfainuk talk 16:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, don't you think that senator Rodolfo Terragno [10][11] is a reliable source? We can take it to the reliable source noticeboard if in doubt. He is a senator and historian, I believe it doesn't come much better than that for interpreting Argentina's law. -- Langus (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Langus be careful with that source, both positions are using it and that's the problem. The discussed overweight is on citing the bill part, not the analysis. That's why I propose delete the irrelevant part (the effects of the bill in case of passing) and adding the mention of current legislation status (what's on the summary), both from that same source. The reliability is not in doubt (official record), but I think its being misused. pmt7ar ^(talk) 21:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. I fully agree with you then. <Update:> Nonetheless, I see you voted in favor of removing the whole section. Am I misunderstanding your vote, or the proposal? -- Langus (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You understood my vote but not my intention. I'm not optimistic enough to see it corrected, so I voted for the "lesser bad". I reject the status quo but surely correcting it will extend the discussion to a point of tiredness, so I think the removal as an "intermediate step". If it gets removed then we would need a new consensus for whatever is added. As it's now, WCM'll keep reverting in name of the previous consensus. pmt7ar ^(talk) 21:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is reliable sources on the subject of the dispute, and how much weight this point is given by such sources. I wouldn't characterise this as that kind of source - it's specifically dealing with this single point of Argentine nationality law, and I'm not convinced that its existence demonstrates that this point is notable in the context of the dispute as a whole. I'd also suggest that getting hold of other sources might be a good idea for other reasons - such as to inform further the ongoing discussion below. Pfainuk talk 17:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree — The issue of actual applicability or nonapplicability of Argentine Law to the Islands and the Islanders is very much relevant to this article. Senator Terragno is an expert on the subject, and his analysis and opinion is reliably sourced (it does not need to be considered by committees let alone passed as a law to become so). Anyone is welcome to add other relevant Argentine or non-Argentine opinion to the section, if properly sourced that is. Best, Apcbg (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

other source for inconclusive

First I want to state that argumentum ad verecundiam is the rule of WP: verifiability, not truth and Tarragno is, I repeat, a well educated lawyer, historian and free elected member of the Argentine parlament.

Now the second source that unambiguous explain the situation of the Argentine nacionalida law:

MINISTERIO DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES, COMERCIO INTERNACIONAL Y CULTO (Buenos Aires, 19 y 20 de Noviembre de 2002) INSTITUTO DEL SERVICIO EXTERIOR DE LA NACIÓN DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE ASUNTOS CONSULARES 1ras. JORNADAS SOBRE EL RÉGIMEN JURÍDICO DE LA NACIONALIDAD ARGENTINA

V. LA DETERMINACIÓN DE LA NACIONALIDAD ARGENTINA

1. Las reglas materiales de atribución de la nacionalidad argentina

Jus soli. La nacionalidad argentina se basa predominantemente en el hecho del nacimiento de la persona dentro del territorio nacional (principio de nacionalidad natural: art. 75 inc. 12, Const. Nac.; art. 1 inc. 1, ley 346). Por lo que alcanza a los nacidos en las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, que son parte integrante del territorio argentino. Aunque en este caso la nacionalidad argentina no podrá ser invocada frente al Reino Unido y factiblemente tampoco frente a otros Estados que no reconozcan los derechos soberanos de la República Argentina sobre las islas.

I think Tarragno's authority is accepted by most of us and this exerpt of the JORNADAS SOBRE EL RÉGIMEN JURÍDICO DE LA NACIONALIDAD ARGENTINA are unequivocal: Aunque en este caso la nacionalidad argentina no podrá ser invocada frente al Reino Unido y factiblemente tampoco frente a otros Estados que no reconozcan los derechos soberanos de la República Argentina sobre las islas.

How could we explain that to the reader? "inconclusive" is the right word. Best regards, --Keysanger 11:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You focus on that, I focus on Por lo que alcanza a los nacidos en las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, que son parte integrante del territorio argentino.. The exactly same case as in the bill. The position under the legislation is clear, not inconclusive. That mention is about its application, it is the factual situation, and that's another thing. It's like calling the Argentine claim over the islands "inconclusive" because in the reality it doesn't exercise any sovereignty. Focus on this: Aunque en este caso la nacionalidad argentina no podrá ser invocada frente al Reino Unido. It isn't inconclusive. The legislation is clear, just that it cannot be applied (as it's obvious as it doesn't exercise any sovereignty). It's already too well explained that Argentine doesn't have any kind of control over the islands, less it be could it have records about the births of the islanders, but if you're dedicating a small subsection about the Argentine POV then it has to go along with the claims. Being concrete; we have reliable authoritative sources interpretating the legislation saying that under it islanders are argentine (and at the same time explaining it cannot be applied), but NONE saying the contrary about the position (in fact, the bill was to propose a change in nationality law to exclude them). I haven't seen any source denying or contradicting the argentine position, so I don't see where it's "inconclusive". pmt7ar ^(talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As you say, The legislation is clear, just that it cannot be applied. Ergo it is inconclusive. You can review the means of inconclusive in inconclusive, conclusion and conclusive: Not conclusive, not leading to a conclusion.

I think the section clearly manifests what you say:

1. the legislation cannot be applied
2. today the Falklander _can_ become Argentine
3. they are not Argentine
4. there is a proyect to exclude them

But let me know, What is your complete proposal? how would you describe such situation?. --Keysanger 15:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The legislation is conclusive regarding the Falklander: they are Argentine by birth. Of course, this is Argentina's POV, but that's precisely the section's subject. If you refer to general status and agreement regarding the issue, you'll find opposite opinions. That's because there's still a "sovereignty dispute". -- Langus (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not get confused with the terms:

Theoretically, yes, you are right, for the Argentine law they are Argentine: "Por lo tanto, para nuestra ley, los nativos de esas islas son argentinos.". But Tarragno continues "Mal podría pretenderse que se aplicara (eng. for It would be wrong to apply) a los nacidos en las Malvinas el artículo 75 inciso 1l de la Constitución de la Nación Argentina cuando, de hecho, esa Constitución no rige en las islas y las autoridades argentinas no pueden hacer nada para imponerla". That is the bitter hardships of the Argentine legislation that the subsection has to expose to the reader: They have the right to be Argentines, but no one in Argentine want them as Argentine as long as they oppose the Argentine occupation of the islands because, states Terragno, "Esa laguna podría ser usada para aparentar una contradicción entre lo que nuestro país sostiene en sus reclamos de soberanía y lo que establece su legislación interna".

The "jornadas" of the Argentine Foreign Office says that same, but don't mention the reason of the denial: "Aunque en este caso (Falklands) la nacionalidad argentina no podrá ser invocada frente al Reino Unido y factiblemente tampoco frente a otros Estados que no reconozcan los derechos soberanos de la República Argentina sobre las islas."

We have now two reliable sources that enunciate the spirit of the subsection. The "problem" with the argumentum ad verecundiam is cleared (I hope for all).

Best regards, --Keysanger 20:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being too pushy, but:

• "Por lo tanto, para nuestra ley, los nativos de esas islas son argentinos." -> This is Terragno talking about current state of Argentina's legislation.
• "Mal podría pretenderse que se aplicara a los nacidos en las Malvinas." -> This is Terragno expressing his opinion to explain the reasons for a bill that has yet to be passed as law. It could be a very common viewpoint in Argentina, or not. But that is not important here because the article says "the Argentine nationality legislation is inconclusive with respect to the Islanders". Which clearly is not. -- Langus (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Keysanger it is far from suitable to support the conclusive statement ascribed to it, one man's opinion does not represent the opinion of the Argentine Government and to make such a clean statement we would need a definitive legal judgement. We do not present opinion as fact. Argentine legislation and the pronouncements of its Government are at odds, you say they are "Argentine by birth", then turn round in the next breath and describe them as "British Squatters". Am I wrong in that? You can't have it both ways.

I could be convinced to remove the consensus text about the bill, however, that would be contingent on a definitive statement from somewhere that the Bill is no longer in the legislative programme and that has been lacking. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Langnus,

You are confused with "to be Argentine" and "the right to be Argentine". Maradona is Argentine but Jan Cheek is not Argentine. If you where in Argentina, you will see that there are a lot of persons that can be Italian, Spaniards or etc, but they are not because they lost the papers of his ancestors or because they don't like the waiting queue before the consulate. So, they are not Italian even though they can be Italian.

If we write in the article "Falklanders are Argentine" we make an exhibition of us. We have to keep the text: "On an individual basis, native Falkland Islanders who have declared before the Argentine authorities that they are Argentine, have been recognized as Argentine nationals by birth" It is important to say "on individual basis" because Tarragnos reasons: Esa laguna podría ser usada para aparentar una contradicción entre lo que nuestro país sostiene en sus reclamos de soberanía y lo que establece su legislación interna.

Tarragno says that it is inconclusive. Your opinion, Langnus, is not important. --Keysanger 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The right to be?? For Argentina's current legislation, Jan Cheek is Argentine. It may sound crazy, but that's the way it is right now. Terragno says so, the 1ras. Jornadas Sobre El Régimen Juridico De La Nacionalidad Argentina says the same, and James Peck, Alexander Betts and probably others, account for that. In your Italian example you're comparing Argentina's jus soli with Italia's jus sanguinis. Oranges to apples.

You're worried because "If we write in the article "Falklanders are Argentine" we make an exhibition of us", but you're forgetting that we're talking about the Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship section. Sadly, I'm starting to think that it is just a charade... Regards. -- Langus (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If any charade then it is to write "Jan Cheek is Argentine". I can hear from here the laughter in "Puerto Argentino".

All jokes aside, I accepted already that for Argentina's current legislation, Jan Cheek is Argentine. Tarragno says it and the Jornadas says it also. But both say that it it not applied and Tarragno says why: "Esa laguna podría ser usada para aparentar una contradicción entre lo que nuestro país sostiene en sus reclamos de soberanía y lo que establece su legislación interna".

What is your proposal?. Best regards, --Keysanger 08:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to see a definitive statement the bill is stopped?

I note that the source contradicts the claim being made Esa laguna podría ser usada para aparentar una contradicción entre lo que nuestro país sostiene en sus reclamos de soberanía y lo que establece su legislación interna. This gap could be used to look like a contradiction between what our country holds in its claims of sovereignty and domestic law establishes. Argentine law is inconclusive, which is precisely what the source is saying. Keysanger is correct in this matter IMHO. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Second proposal

First paragraph: The Argentine nationality legislation currently regards any person born in the Falkland Inslands as Argentine, by unilateral application of the principle of jus soli. At the same time it recognizes their British citizenship, as Argentina legislation allows for more than one nationality. Native Falkland Islanders who have requested it, have been formally recognized as Argentine nationals by birth.

Second paragraph: <unchanged or removed; probably the later>

Regards. -- Langus (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I would reject that as an option for the article, for what it omits. Argentina also routinely describes the population variously as "illegal", "squatters" and an "illegally implanted population", moreover that they have no legal rights. I take it citizens have rights, whilst "illegal" aliens don't? You can't have it both ways.

Moreover as the very source you're using demonstrates there is a contradiction in Argentine law. Hence, the current text which states the law is ambiguous is the correct way to do it IMHO. Otherwise we will have to include the information that Argentine routinely describes the population as illegal squatters as well. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you're making those things up. There is no contradiction or inconclusiveness on the legislation. Opinions are what can vary. You're just tossing words to mislead and acting as the owner here. Stop repeating the qualifications like "squatters" and "pirates" as if they have anything to do with the legislation. And for your information, those adjetives goes to the british. UK are the pirates (in honor to their history), not the islanders. All those adressings go to the islands in the north hemisphere, not on the south. Anyway that is offtopic. The fact is you're messing things to confuse. There is the law and the two sources (both accepted for you) being CLEAR about how legislation is, and then giving opinions or analysis (like that they cannot be applied) that anyone and all we here already know, yet you're trying to mix it to say THE legislation is inconclusive and contradictory, that is not. Again, not a single source was provided contradicting the legislation. Both that you are using are not saying what you say, you're misreading them. I'm really troubled to assume good faith giving all this show. pmt7ar ^(talk) 20:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Langus,

A) Do you have a reference for "it recognizes their British citizenship"?.

B) I miss the mention that, the legislation is not applied or it is inconclusive:

• Aunque en este caso ((Falklanders. Keysanger)) la nacionalidad argentina no podrá ser invocada frente al Reino Unido y factiblemente tampoco frente a otros Estados que no reconozcan los derechos soberanos de la República Argentina sobre las islas.(jornadas)
• Como en realidad se trata de una población no argentina, implantada y mantenida en estado de clausura, la ley argentina no debe seguir manteniendo una ficción (Terragno) ((the fiction is that the Falklanders are Argentine citizen. Keysanger))

C) "unilateral" and "as Argentina legislation allows for more than one nationality" is out of question, and unneccesary.

D) Second paragraph must be kept <unchanged>

I think there are enough references to the fact that the Argentine citizenship of the Falklanders is a fiction. As Wee says, Argentine people don't see them as Argentine and he cited already how they are called in Argentina. Best regards, --Keysanger 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why your revert? There is no discussion about the second paragraph. Absolutely no arguments about your "D" or why is relevant mentions the effects of pure air. I now sum the edit of Lagnus also considering it viable of removal. 5 editors in favor of removal and proved (and agreed) that its weight cannot be sustained, versus an arbitrary "must be kept <unchanged>", without saying even why. pmt7ar ^(talk) 23:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger:

A) I only included that expression because it is in the consensuated version, and I thought it was proved. For what is worth, I believe it refers to the fact that Argentina doesn't require James Peck, Betts or whoever to renounce to British citizenship, that they acquired by the same principle of birth under territory.

B) You know I think that's not correct.

• Aunque en este caso ((Falklanders. Keysanger)) la nacionalidad argentina no podrá ser invocada frente al Reino Unido y factiblemente tampoco frente a otros Estados que no reconozcan los derechos soberanos de la República Argentina sobre las islas.(jornadas) --> This refers to the fact of external recognition of that citizenship. Not internal to Argentina. (Remember: Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship)
• Como en realidad se trata de una población no argentina, implantada y mantenida en estado de clausura, la ley argentina no debe seguir manteniendo una ficción (Terragno) ((the fiction is that the Falklanders are Argentine citizen. Keysanger)) --> Correct interpretation, but this has no weight of law. It's the reasoning for the bill.

C) I respectfully disagree. I included "unilateral" to remember the reader we're talking about Argentine position. When I wrote this, I did it specifically to address your concerns ("If we write in the article "Falklanders are Argentine" we make an exhibition of us"). And the fact that Argentina allows for many nationalities I think is a good clarification, since it doesn't work that way for every country (for example, I've learned that British citizenship has to be declined in those cases)

D) I agree with Pmt7ar and others that is best to take it out. I thought we all agreed on this. That is why I'm inclined to remove it, actually: in favor of consensus.

Best regards. -- Langus (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about the Argentine position, Argentina also describes the population as "illegal" and "squatters". Now you can arm wave and attempt to dismiss this point, or to divert discussions with huge tracts of tendentious argument but this is a documented fact. Yes for political reasons the Argentine Government will make a big fuss about the "rights" of a Falklander to take Argentine citizenship but in the next breath it will turn around and say they are illegal. If Argentina is such a paragon of virtue, then why did Peck have to take Argentine citizenship to overcome petty bureaucracy to see his children?

In a similar vein, your own cite demonstrates that Argentine law is ambiguous on the matter. You can't ignore the text of sources that contradicts the edit you wish to make. If you wish to move forward, you have to address this issue. So again I would not support this edit for the simple reason it does not present an accurate picture and only presents one of many opinions. This fails WP:NPOV per WP:CHERRY.

As regards the 2nd Paragraph, a cite that the bill has stopped or is no longer in the legislative programme has been requested but none has been forthcoming. It would be a simple matter to stop the to/fro of reverts if one is produced. So until them I'm restoring that Paragraph as it is cited and verifiable. Now I've already indicated a willingness to remove it but I would like to see somthing to back your claims up. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ehm... really? I've already showed you (even you said I repeated those textwalls) enough to back it up, agreed by other editors. And what has NOT backed is why it should be kept. So instead, I would like to request YOU to back your claim up. First it was by consensus, now that other editors are willing to remove it is because its cited and verifiable. FYI that doesn't matter, it is cited and it is verifiable and the source is reliable, but it's extremely over weighted and irrelevant, you're putting an opinion of one man as the position or intention of one nation. Anyway I won't put a text of wall again, I'm pretty sure you already read me. This is not [WP:CHERRY], I'm not deleting it because contradices the former. It has enough to be deleted by undue weight and relevancy. Other editors agreed or showed no complaints, so I'll maintain it deleted. If you want to keep it, please address those issues and back your claims. Before reverting it, take it to a noticeboard, or I'll do it. pmt7ar ^(talk) 12:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't that is the point, you've shouted a lot but haven't provided the required cite that the bill has stopped or is no longer in the legislative programme. If you do thats fine, if you don't I will revert your removal of cited text. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I did. Check the HCDN page to check the current status. [12]>Proyectos>Búsqueda general>(blank "cámara de inicio", broaden the time limit -bill is dated 2003- and check by number)1640-S-2003. The current status is under "Trámite", but in this case it doesn't even started, its was derived to commissions since then and never reached any reading at parliament. If you want to see how it should look through all the process check 0076-S-1999 (braden the date to include 1999), it also originated from the senate, went to commission, but progressed quite fast. After derived to a commission it should get a "dictamen de comisión", only then it goes to the chambers to get half and full sanction. I think that's enough to demonstrate that it never entered the parliament and to assume that is practically stopped at the front door. If you doubt please read how the argentine parliamentary process works.pmt7ar ^(talk) 12:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(update) Thanks, searching for it I discovered new information. The bill expired and was archived. The searcher at the senate webpage [13] has details about the comissions. Here's the status of this bill: [14]. It entered the two commissions and ended without a "dictamen". It expired on Feb 2005 and was archived on Jan 2006. So we can stop assuming and take it for granted, the bill never entered the parliament and will never do. pmt7ar ^(talk) 13:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Apcbg, who reverted with summary "it was submitted, and is as relevant as it was". If you really maintain that could I take this issue to a noticeboard? Because I can't do anything more. I've addressed every concern a editors agreed. Even fulfilled WCM request, who opposed the most ("If you do thats fine" -I provided now that the bill has expired). Yet there are still no arguments to deffend its weight. (yes I do repeat myself a lot) The paragraph is explaining the EFFECTS of something years old that never happened or will happen, proposed by ONE SINGLE person as the country position (not even his party, Terragno was the sole signer). That is totally irrelevant, so I disagree with your summary. Also... the paragraph was wrong from the beginning: was submitted before the Argentine Senate and Congress, is misleading (gives the impression the bill was discussed by legislators) and false. It just entered the front desk and was promptly rejected by the commissions, it never passed the first reading, so there's no proof any senat other than Terragno or deputy even read it. The whole paragraph is very, extremely over weighted. pmt7ar ^(talk) 13:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Langus,

I see we can't get a common NPOV, so I think we should look for a wording that mention both. I will make a step forward and hope you agree with following statemens:

• According with the Argentine legislation Falklanders are Argentine and British citizens.
• On an individual basis, native Falkland Islanders who have declared before the Argentine authorities that they are Argentine, have been recognized as Argentine nationals by birth
• However, the universal application of Argentine nationality law to all Islanders is inhibited by the fact that Argentina does not exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Islands and it is considered as a dangerous fiction by important personalities of the Argentine state.
• ((the second paragraf stay unchanged))

What about?.

I don't consider that the subsection has to transmit the Argentine POV to the reader. Wikipedia is not the speaking tube of Argentine nationalism. Like the British POV, we have to inform what is going on, why, who, etc.

I find irrelevant whether the proyect is old, new or in tramite. Terragno's writings speaks out and confirm the fact that the Falklanders are a problem for the Argentine claim. They don't know what to do with people living there that refuse to be Argentine. As far as I know, Argentina had tried a lot of ways to get rid of the Falklanders:

1. to invade and opress them (Galtieri's way)
2. to seduce them (Menem's)
3. to get them tired (Kirchner's)
4. to consider them as Br. colony (UN resolution)
5. to consider them as Br. invaders (they haven't the right to self determination)
6. to buy them (Menem's)

So, your proposal "they are simply Argentine" is delusive because it simulates a "brave world" that doesn't exist. The reality is far more complex and Terragno's proposition is the reference and he is a unbreakable witness of the contemporary situation in Argentina (see his curriculum vitae).Best regards, --Keysanger 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pmt7ar,

Please, take it easy. If you are in hurry, no problem, switch off your PC, do your important work or have a funny day and come tomorrow. Wikipedia will be there also tomorrow. This is not the first discussion in this article and it will be not the last one. Don't worry. The more time we took to sort out this problem the more stable the article. Best regards, --Keysanger 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm content to see the second paragraph removed now (not difficult if you provide information is it), however, I am not the only person to require convincing and I suggest you adopt a less combative attitude. BTW Apcbg is not British. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I disagree with the removal of the second paragraph, and suggest you withdraw your edit as there was no consensus for such removal. Of course the bill was submitted, that's why it is in the parliamentary archive. And the paragraph does not explain 'the effects', it explains the solution proposed by Terragno which helps the reader understand the issue that remains unresolved. Apcbg (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The 2. paragraf is restored. --Keysanger 15:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger:

• "According with the Argentine legislation Falklanders are Argentine and British citizens." Source for this? In which law(s)?
• "the universal application of Argentine nationality law to all Islanders is inhibited by the fact that..." Source?
• "and it is considered as a dangerous fiction by important personalities of the Argentine state" -> Undue weight. Shame on you.
• "As far as I know, Argentina had tried a lot of ways to get rid of the Falklanders:" to invade opress seduce them etc etc. Source? I hope that's not WP:OR...

@WCM: "Argentina also describes the population as "illegal" and "squatters"". Source?

@Apcbg: Undue Weight. See Pmt7ar's sources. The bill was not even be discussed.

Before we continue discussing the first paragraph, can we please remove the second? Keysanger, Apcbg? -- Langus (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Langus:

• A)source: jornadas ...
• B)source: terragno ...
• C)Undue weight? Terragno wants to exclude them and you say it is undue weight? Who are you? Are you CFK?. Shame on you.
• D)This is OR, yes.

Do you want to cooperate or what?

The second paragraph deleted? why?. Best regards, --Keysanger 18:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Argentine Ambassador to the UN, Jorge Arguello, Speech to the GA, 25 August 2010.
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]
7. [20]

Take your pick, all describe the population as "illegal". You can't have it both ways. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've searched for the word 'illegal' in all those documents and it's never applied to the population. The word 'squatter' yield no result either. To my knowledge, and unless you prove me wrong, I consider these to be void references. -- Langus (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph should be removed.

1. Fails relevancy, it describes the effects of a bill, the solution proposed. Air, not any fact more than the idea itself. What "could have been if".
2. Over weighted in style, taking half the subsection; and has no relation to the subsection itself. The paragraph itself has no relation with the Argentine position.
3. Is misleading and false since its header: has been submitted before the Argentine Senate and Congress. Senate AND Congress? It is giving much weight for something just submitted at the front desk of the building of the senate and was rejected right away on the preliminary commissions. Never entered the chambers usually refered as senate or congress. Never discussed, never given importance to discuss it. Expired and archived. Who is Terragno? One of 72 senators, who signed it alone. He represents 0.014% of the Senate... don't you think its too low to be considered relevant? A bill may be relevant if it got a considerable amount of votes, even if a minority, but this didn't make it that far. I'm not CFK, nor a senat, but guess what, the parliamentary process dismissed it (I don't say senate or congress because it never reached there). If it was not important enough to pass the commissions, why its important to us and which why motive we portray it as relevant to the Argentine position?
4. Apart from WP:CBALL, WP:UNDUE, is this even notable? Don't forget its a primary source. Was some kind of repercussion on the media about this?

I also see neutrality issues, giving the mislead on the header. Now that we know at least it should be mentioned that it never passed the first step of parliamentary process and now is expired. But there are reasons enough to remove it completely. Agreement has been show by some editors, so may we get a consensus to remove it here? I'll wait to Pfainuk and Martinvl to comment now that we have refs that the bill expired. pmt7ar ^(talk) 22:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Search for "Malvinas Terragno" in Google and you get 93.400 hits. In contrast "Malvinas Pmt7ar" and you get 57 hits. I think Terragno's, and his wirtings are with 93400 hits relevant enough for the article.

I see you are running out of arguments but you keep your biased view. --Keysanger 00:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Then be my guest, buy his books, and add anything important to the Falklands articles. But explaining what he proposed on a bill dismissed and expired has nothing to do with Argentine position. Put it on Terragno's article as one of his actions, like his CV. I doubt those 93400 hits are bout the bill or its importance.pmt7ar ^(talk) 00:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Keysanger: I really can't explain it to you better than Pmt7ar already did in the lasts posts. I'll leave aside the sourcing and discussion about the 1st paragraph until we settle this down. Allow me to repeat:

• This draft legislation has no chances now of being discussed in the chambers. It has lost relevance.
• You're taking one man's opinion and presenting it as Argentina's viewpoint. Moreover, this opinion never reached the senate, which cast serious doubts over its representativity.

Really, after this information I honestly don't understand why are we still discussing this. I'll leave aside the undue weight and I'll ask: Keysanger & Apcbg, what are your reasons for including an expired bill and present it as Argentina's position? Because it really is absolutely and positively crazy to me... -- Langus (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

‘Undue weight’ in comparison to what? The Argentine claim to have imposed Argentine citizenship upon the Falklanders is a relevant aspect of the Argentine sovereignty claim and, like I wrote, if there is other opinion on or analysis of the Argentine position on the Falklander citizenship then you would be welcome to propose its inclusion. The article would only benefit from that. ‘Before we continue discussing the first paragraph, can we please remove the second?’ I don't think so; that text has not been added in the process of the present discussion, it is the result of a past discussion and has been established for quite some time now, so its change or removal would need a new consensus I suppose. Best, Apcbg (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This is getting farcical. Could someone independent please review the sources above and confirm that they a) pronounce the Falkland Island situation as illegal and b) statements of Argentine Government position. Please. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"and confirm that they a) pronounce the Falkland Island situation as illegal" -> this was not your claim. I quote you: "where has Argentina issued a definitive statement about the islanders status? Most statements I'm aware of, dismiss them as "squatters", "piratas" and "usurpadors" with no rights whatsoever". In all your interventions you always talked about population (Falklanders), not the situation. -- Langus (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)