Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Claiming to have claimed

It would be interesting to know, when did the first source appear, reporting that Argentina claimed that all the Argentine settlers had been expelled from the Falkland Islands in 1833? Best, Apcbg (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

In the very 1833 itself, the diplomatic complaint by Manuel Moreno right after the event. See here Cambalachero (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Except it does not, it merely includes the removal of the garrison. Whilst I am well aware this is wp:or, and not suitable for inclusion I have not seen it as a claim before the 1964 speech at the UN. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It mentions both the garrison and settlers: "...que la guarnicion y colonos de las Provincias Unidas en las Islas Malvinas, igualmente que la goleta de guerra Sarandí, estacionada en aquel dominio de la República, habian sido obligados á retirarse, por intimacion de dicho capitan Orislow de la corbeta de S. M. Clio, y que este oficial, desalojando por la fuerza la dicha guarnicion y colonos, habia declarado que iba á tomar y tomaba posesion de las islas á nombre de S. M. B., no obstante la discusion pendiente." (bolded the mentions, "colono" is the Spanish for "settler") Cambalachero (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, got the translation wrong. Either way its still untrue. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw that 'la guarnicia y colonos', but being ignorant if that refers to 'and settlers' or 'and the settlers' (meaning all the settlers; I must be wrong, but why is it not 'la guarnicia y los colonos'?), I wonder if any English version of Moreno's note is available? Apcbg (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember that that's Spanish language of 2 centuries ago, it is not exactly the same than modern Spanish language. Cambalachero (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So do you think Moreno was saying "all settlers", or "[some] settlers", or his wording could mean both? Apcbg (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, in this case "la guarnicion y colonos" and "la guarnicion y los colonos" means about the same, which is "all of them". But this could be interpreted differently; that's why we need secondary sources. --Langus (t) 19:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why we should not be using fictional secondary sources like Moreno for any purpose other than noting that a fictional claim was made and we should instead be relying on the primary sources, which include the log of the ARA Sarandi, Onslow's written instruction to Pinedo, Charles Darwin's March 1833 count of the settlers, etc. Mcarling (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreno's complaint is a primary source as well, see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources for a description on which is which. The problems of the subtle differences between the modern Spanish and English languages and those spoken 2 centuries ago would manifest in all the primary sources of the time period. That's why we must use secondary sources, and not primary ones (neither Moreno's complaint, nor ships logs, instructions or reports by visitors). Note that I never said we should use Moreno's complaint as a source of anything: the original question of this thread was when was the first complaint about the expulsion of the settlers, and I simply gave an answer. Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, where is the source for that wikisource document? Whenever I've put a document into wikisource, it has to be sourced to an external sources to allow for verification. How do we know the transliteration is accurate if it cannot be verified? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The current positions

WP:NOTFORUM

As a third party, my understanding of the positions on each side is that: The British claim that the current residents have spoken out quite clearly on the issue and as long as these people continue to want to be part of the UK then their islands will remain in the UK. The Argentinians claim that the current population on the islands is due to Ethnic cleansing as the previously Argentinian population was either tricked or forced from the islands and replaced with colonists who have no legitimate rights to Argentinian soil. In what parts of the above am I mistaken? Hcobb (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I believe you are mistaken in only one detail. The government of Argentina claims that Vernet's settlers were forced from the islands. I have not seen any claims by the government of Argentina that they were tricked. Of course, these are the positions only with respect to the question of self-determination. There are other bases or alleged bases for the claims by each of the three parties to the dispute. Mcarling (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Also I would add that mnuch of the population was not argenine, in fact it was ethnicly diverse.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC) You miss a couple of crucial details. The islands are not part of the UK, rather they are a British Overseas Territory. Crucially they are self-governing relying on the UK for defence and foreign relations. The UK view is that the views of the islanders is paramount and will only negotiate with Argentina on their behalf. Argentina having enshrined their claim in the constitution leaving no room for "negotiations" seeks to dictate the outcome of any negotiations and is not keen to have its claims examined by a competent body such as the ICJ. In truth it has long been a convenient tool in Argentine politics for rabble rousing. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Argentina has plenty more claims of why Malvinas are Argentinian than that one and so does the UK for why its theirs. I'd advise you to not believe anything some editors here tell you though, there's lots of bias going around. An example is the comment above, where Wee mentions Argentina not being keen to have its claims examined by a competent body such as the ICJ when it's common knowledge that is in fact the UK who has systematically refused sitting down for negotiations and has disregarded any UN resolutions on the matter. The last sentence of that comment speaks for itself being nothing more than a cheap shot to Argentina in general. This article is a good start if you're interested in learning about claims by both sides, but as you can see in this talk page, it's neutrality is disputed by several editors (including me) who feel the article favors the UK position. The issue is far from simple so you should investigate a bit for yourself and try to make up your own mind. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this correct?

The Neutral or calling for negotiations section reads:

“ The United Nations have called on both countries to begin dialogue over the sovereignty claim. In 1946 the UK included the Falkland Islands on the UN list of non-self-governing territories under Chapter XI of the UN charter... ”

Shouldn't that read UN instead of UK? Oh and the reference link is dead. Gaba p (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it should read "UK". The Falkland Islands were added to the list by the UK. Mcarling (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, is there are reference link for this, because for what I read here:

“ The UN maintains a list of 16 “Non-Self-Governing Territories” which it defines as “non-decolonised”. The Falkland Islands are among 10 former British colonies on the list, which the UN began compiling in 1946 as a kind of roll-call of shame for the remaining colonial powers. ”

it wouldn't appear so. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The administering powers were required by Article 73(e) of the UN Charter to submit the names and other information about all of their non self-governing territories. Britain did so promptly. Mcarling (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, could you provide a reference? As I said, that's not what that site would appear to be saying. The one cited is dead anyway, so a new reference is needed. Gaba p (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT why don't you get off your lazy backside and find one for yourself instead of constantly demanding others do things for you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't do all of Gaba's research for him, but I'll point him in the right direction. It will be in the Journal of the UN for 1946 or 1947. One can get a clue here: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/032/60/IMG/NR003260.pdf?OpenElement and here: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/033/17/IMG/NR003317.pdf?OpenElement Mcarling (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee I did get off my lazy backside and provided a reference. If you bother to read my second comment you'll see it there. The problem is that reference seems to imply something different from what the article says, and since the current reference is broken I thought better to ask first instead of replacing it with mine (which would've implied I change UK with UN) Mcarling, I'll check that reference to see if this fact is actually there. Otherwise I'll change UK to UN and put the reference I quoted above. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And it would have been reverted straight away because its untrue. The UN did not decide of its own bat to have some official grab an atlas off the shelf and make up a list of colonies. It relied on the member states to list them, which the article reflects. It means that entities that could have been classified as a colony, such as Patagonia, were never listed. And in your rush to post it seems you failed to notice I fixed the link and added a quote - took me all of 30 seconds to do. Probably less time that it took you to compose that reply. The list maintained by the C24 is based on the original submission back in '46. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, thanks for fixing that. Mcarling (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that's why I didn't change the reference in the first place, because I acknowledged the possibility that that article (the one I referenced) might be mistaken. Thanks for finding a replacement for the dead link Wee. Next time maybe improve the attitude a little, ok? Because in your rush to insult me you fail to notice you insult Mcarling too, who did not provide that reference in 30 seconds like you did (after first coming here and investing another 30 seconds to accuse me of being lazy that is). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel at all insulted by Wee Curry Monster. Thank you, Gaba, for taking this up in talk rather than directly introducing false information. There is too much eagerness to make controversial changes in this and related articles without first establishing a consensus. Mcarling (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Article intro II

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.

---

The last part of the lede could be taken as stating a British claim, since the right to self-determination is in fact a British claim. Right now it says "Contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. They gained full citizenship with the..." I move to change this to: "Contemporary Falkland Islanders gained full citizenship with the...". What they consider themselves is only relevant in the context of the British claim of self-determination given that Argentina doesn't care what nationality they think they are. Thoughts? Gaba p (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. That the Falkland Islanders consider themselves British would still be relevant if there were no sovereignty dispute. It's who they are. I think all the sources are in agreement on this point. Mcarling (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the sources on what nationality the islanders think they are, this fact is more than clear. I'm saying that since what nationality they think they are is the British claim for maintaining its sovereignty over the islands (self-determination), stating that in the lede is the same as stating a British claim. This article deals with the sovereignty dispute and thus this simple fact becomes more than just another piece of information about the islands. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you're confusing who they are with the political association they choose for themselves. The former is a background fact. The latter is the exercise of their right of self-determination. Mcarling (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"you're confusing who they are with the political association they choose for themselves", I don't think I am. Who they are (background fact) is clear: they are Falklanders. The political association they choose (self-determination disputed claim) is also clear: they choose to be British. The article is not saying who they are, the article says who they choose to be associated with politically by stating that they consider themselves to be British. As I said, being that this is the British argument for maintaining sovereignty, this fact should be left for the claims section (where it already is mentioned) Gaba p (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it is simply background information, do you have anything better to do, such as actually writing articles? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is not just background information, it is the statement of a British claim in the lede. Wee if you bother to look at my contributions, you'll see that I've created two articles in the last few weeks. I also note this is the second aggression by Wee directed at me in his last two comments. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If it were a British claim rather than an accepted fact, that the Falkland Islanders consider themselves British, then there would have to be a counter-claim, that they consider themselves something else, perhaps African or Chinese. So, Gaba, where are the counter-claims? Mcarling (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It is background information, it is not a statement of a claim - not even Argentina disputes that they are British. And if you want to be pedantic about it, Argentina uses that fact to declare they are not a 3rd party in the dispute. Given all the abuse you have directed toward me and others, feigning injured pride at my irritation (not aggression) at your continued disruption is more than a little hypocritical. IF you put as much effort into article writing you'd have created more than "2". Wee Curry Monster talk 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point Wee Curry Monster. If most Falkland Islanders being British (or feeling British) is a British claim, then it is also an Argentine claim. Rather, it is an undisputed fact which is used by all three sides to make differing claims. Mcarling (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mcarling I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that the Falklanders being/feeling British is a British claim. That is a known fact beyond any doubt (so far at least) My point is that the fact that they consider themselves to be British is not just simple background information but currently the British claim for maintaining its sovereignty over the islands. It is not a claim that they consider themselves British but it is a British claim that since they consider themselves to be British then the islands are property of the UK (self-determination) Thus stating that they consider themselves as British in the lede could be seen as supporting the British claim since from Argentina's POV it doesn't matter what nationality they think/feel they are. Anyway, I thought this and came here to discuss it, if there's no consensus then it stays as it is, period.

Wee thanks for your suggestions on how to use my own time and how to create more articles, I'll keep them in mind haha... Oh and I'd like to add that I've had no other issues with any other editor but you (something I believe many editors can relate to) Gaba p (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither Britain nor the Falkland Islanders nor anyone else of whom I'm aware claims "that since they consider themselves to be British then the islands are property of the UK (self-determination)." That's not what the right of self-determination means at all. The right of self-determination means that they have the right to choose, which does not necessarily depend on "what nationality they think/feel they are." Thank you for conceding that it will stay as it is. Mcarling (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A piece of advice, worth repeating as you still seem to think NPOV consists of representing nationalist perspectives. We do not write about matters from the British POV or the Argentine POV. We describe the British and Argentine positions from a neutral POV. A common mistake by nationalists of all persuasions is to demand that their POV is represented to counter what they perceive as bias. The fact that I attract brickbats from nationalists of all denonominations I consider a badge of honour. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Mcarling "The right of self-determination means that they have the right to choose", I agree, that's why I think that stating that they choose to be British in the lede is the same as stating a British claim. Argentina does not recognize their right to self-determination (Argentinian claim) and the UK does (British claim) so my point is that by saying that they consider themselves to be British we are a priori accepting that they have this right thus favoring the British claim. That's why I think it should be left to the claims section. But you are right, it's two against one son unless another editor comes in and agrees with me, it stays as it is. Cheers.

Those are hollow words coming from you Wee, since you are by far the most POV pushing editor I've seen. I know you'd like to think that you are a NPOV paladin but I'm afraid that is not true. Your "brickbats" template is a joke and it's not even funny; I'd suggest you stop flaunting it around, it only makes you look kind of desperate to prove something and usually those most eager to prove NPOV are the ones with an agenda. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie, O, what a panic's in thy breastie!. By the way, have you ever come across the concept of projection bias, sometimes we give away so much about ourselves in our efforts to malign others.

A second piece of advice, focus on content not editors. A third piece of advice is WP:CONSENSUS is about strength of argument not how many mates you can drag into an argument. Latin would usually be included in italics a priori for example. Here endeth the lesson. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"have you ever come across the concept of projection bias", haha that's funny because you are the first to accuse editors of being nationalistic POV pushers.

"focus on content not editors", good advice, I suggest you take it since you were the one who insulted and attacked me first (twice) out of the blue (oh, it's not an attack if it comes from you right? I see..)

"WP:CONSENSUS is about strength of argument not how many mates you can drag into an argument", and who determines the strength? Could it be the consensus? Or maybe it's you who determines it?

"Latin would usually be included in italics a priori for example", what do they say about those internet users who focus on petty orthographic issues? Flamers right? I can speak three languages Wee, English not being my mother tongue. How about you? Cheers mate! Gaba p (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I can speak a number of languages, more than 3 in fact, so whats next willie measuring?

One of the things you seem to forget, is the written record is right above you. Take a sneaky peek and you'll find it was in fact you who started to bandy about accusations of "bias" and "POV". Similarly the insults start from you and if I snap back in irritation don't whine about it. Don't hand it out if you can't take it back. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You started the flaming Wee, now be a good troll and own up to it like a big boy. If I take a sneaky peak what I find is that the first section I opened here on May 6th, after a self-imposed hiatus posterior to my blocking (courtesy of you) to let things cool off, was received by you with the comments:

“ ...The fact you dislike an author's conclusions that contradict your own nationl viewpoint is immaterial (...) That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece. ”

Now remember, I haven't addressed you in any way at the time and was having a very civil discussion with Kahastok and Langus. So who started with the accusations again my friend Wee-man? Gaba p (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. If there isn't a content discussion going on here, could I suggest we have no discussion at all? Kahastok talk 20:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with you but I'm afraid Wee will accuse us of WP:TAGTEAM. Haha just kidding, yeah we should end this it's gone far enough. What say you my favorite evil-scotsman Wee-flamer? Gaba p (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to end it, perhaps avoiding the personal attacks would have been a good idea? No personal attacks means no personal attacks. Kahastok talk 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right Kahastok that's not way to end the discussion (even though he did incur in flaming) I shouldn't have let Wee drag me to an exchange of insults in the first place, so mea culpa for that. I agree to bury the hatchet if Wee acknowledges that he started throwing around accusations of nationalism after I came back to this talk page on May 6th and promises to make an effort not to attack me for no reason again (like he did today for example) I think it's only fair. Regards Gaba p (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2012 (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.

2012 Summit of the Americas

"The Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly has repeatedly endorsed Argentine proposals calling the United Kingdom to restart the negotiations. However, at the 2012 Summit of the Americas Argentina perceived a failer to gather support for a joint statement on the Falklands dispute by the other American countries."

Second sentence casts doubts over the first one. That's however an entirely wrong interpretation on our part (that is, WP:OR). If you read the sources:

Mercopress:

More specifically on the Falklands/Malvinas issue, Holguin said it was “a bilateral issue” between Argentina and the UK, and called for a dialogue between the parties involved , while the war against drugs “is a matter of concern to all”

AlJazeera:

"[Kirchner] was furious, we are told, because of the lack of full, complete support for Argentina's claim of control of the Falkand Islands," Newman said.

The New York Times:

Another obstacle this time was Argentina’s unsuccessful demand for language in it that would support its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, a British dependency in the South Atlantic that Argentina calls the Malvinas. In that dispute, which boiled over into a war between Argentina and Britain in 1982, Mr. Obama said the United States remains neutral.

In short, worded as it is right now, the article implies that the support for calls for negotiations is falling apart. While I'm not saying that in the future this tendency can be reverted (next OAS General Assembly meeting is in June), right now that clearly isn't the case (see interview to Holguin). Argentina pursued a declaration of support for Argentina's POV (that's a step further from neutrality), and it didn't got it. --Langus (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it does. The sentence reads "...Argentina perceived a failer to gather support for a joint statement on the Falklands dispute...", which did happen. Perhaps the word 'full' could be added: "...Argentina perceived a failer to gather full support for a joint statement on the Falklands dispute..." to make it more clear. Gaba p (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Langus (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is already distinctly equivocal about this, in that it refers to a perceived failure to gather support for a joint statement. Which seems to imply that there's another interpretation of events that says Argentina succeeded in getting support for such a statement. Which I doubt.

Referring to "failure to gather full support" suggests that such a statement was supported by a substantial number (a majority at least) of members but was thwarted by one or two hold-outs. Do we have evidence for this in the context of this particular summit?

I note that it refers only to a statement on the Falklands dispute. It doesn't say what that statement is supposed to have said - no statement was made at all. This doesn't necessarily imply that there's waning support for negotiations (though that is a possibility) - only the plain fact that the islands were one of the factors that prevented a joint statement being released. Kahastok talk 22:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That one sentence alone doesn't imply a fading support, I agree. But without any clarification and delivered right after the idea that "The OAS has repeatedly endorsed Argentine proposals calling the United Kingdom to restart the negotiations. However...", it certainly does. Something has to be done, IMHO. --Langus (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, there was no agreement for such a statement at the 2012 Summit of the Americas. The summit did not agree to call for negotiations. If President Kirchner didn't ask for a call for negotiations but for support for her position, it seems to me that that doesn't change the fact that no agreement was reached for a call for negotiations. I don't think we should be actively suggesting that there is not a lessening of support for negotiations (other than Obama and Cameron's conversation earlier this year I'm not sure we have evidence either way). Since we're going into this we should report the fact - which is that no statement was issued. Kahastok talk 16:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've found two sources that state that out of the 34 countries in the summit, only Canada (and the US neutral position) where the reason for not achieving a joint statement first source, second. I'll add these two sources and rephrase the sentence to reflect this fact. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS can we please have an agreement not to enter details of every summit in South America where the same group of countries state exactly the same position time after time with no effect or change in position. Whether its the OAS, UNASUR, MERCOSUR or whatever its always the same countries repeating the same mantra. Its tedious, this is supposedly an encyclopedia and I don't wish to see this article become an endless list of summits spouting the same thing every time. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

annn

The two references I provided are an important piece of information since they both state that only Canada and the US where opposed to a joint statement supporting Argentina's claim and the remaining 32 countries backed that claim. I hardly think this is an irrelevant fact or tedious details. I move to add both references and my rephrasing back. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The question that should be asked is does this represent a shift in anyone's opinion? The answer is no. Therefore its repeating information already in the article and its sirrelevant and tedious details. This article does not exist to document every foreign summit where Argentina puts a debate about the Falklands on the agenda - tediously on a weekly basis of late. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not trying to document every foreign summit, we're not even trying to document this one. It's just two lines of relevant information regarding this dispute, how can we talk about the summit and not about what came out of it? It's two lines of information, how is that tedious? I found two crystal clear references on the positions of the countries involved in the summit and that minimal information should be added. Gaba p (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Does it represent anything new? And every time there is a summit we hear the same thing. Its only two lines is not a justification and you`re avoiding the point. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly relevant information given that it says that a joint statement in the last Summit of the Americas was not achieved only due to Canada and the US neutral position. How can this piece of information be irrelevant when we are mentioning the last Summit of the Americas?

And yes it does Wee. Can you please point me to where in the article another Summit of the Americas and its outcome is discussed? Because I don't see it. The fact that you've heard countries in America massively supporting the Argentinian claim several times is not a valid reason for obscuring this information. Gaba p (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I ask is this anything new, you simply assert it is relevant. Does it represent a new development? Yes/No - its a simple question just answer it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

To add, I've removed the whole sentence, every one of these summits results in stupid edit wars as every announcement is so "relevant" and "important". This was only noteworthy for CFK storming off in the huff at not getting her own way but that is only tangentially relevant at best for this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy/paste my own comment above:

“ And yes it does Wee (represent anything new). Can you please point me to where in the article another Summit of the Americas and its outcome is discussed? Because I don't see it. The fact that you've heard countries in America massively supporting the Argentinian claim several times is not a valid reason for obscuring this information. ”

Yes it is something new, no other Summit of the Americas and it's outcome is mentioned in the article (and even if it were, this is the last one and thus the most relevant one) Gaba p (talk)

And now you've removed it entirely?? I come here to look for consensus on virtually any change I intent to do in the article, no matter how small, and you just go and unilaterally remove the whole section we are discussing?? This is unacceptable and you now it. I'll revert your changes to my previous edit. The reasons you asked for have been given several times already, please do not revert my edit again without consensus. Gaba p (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Whats new about it? It is the same position of those countries stated at <random>any forum</random>. So what is new about other than her hissy fit?

BTW if you want to go back to the last consensus version fine but don't substitute your edit and tell me I can't change it. You haven't given a reason other than "it is relevant 'cos I says so" and notably you're avoiding answering a simple question. Is this anything new? The answer is no by the way. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OK for the second time I'm bringing this to the talk page, I've reverted back to the version which last had consensus. So again is this anything new? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You're bringing this to the talk page after I reverted your unilateral changes, you forgot to mention.

"notably you're avoiding answering a simple question", please read carefully Wee, I've said this two times already: Yes it is something new no other Summit of the Americas and it's outcome is mentioned in the article so yes it is new information. The fact that any forum you can think of supports the Argentinian claim is not a valid reason for dismissing this one and you know it.

"You haven't given a reason other than "it is relevant 'cos I says so"", so you don't think that a forum constituted by 34 countries (almost all of the countries in the American continents) including the US (the most powerful nation in the world) is relevant? Really? This is your other argument? Gaba p (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again you're being needlessly combative, you reverted to restore your unilateral changes and you did so whilst it was still being discussed. You didn't only revert my changes, you restored your edit.

And no that bears no relation to my comments. Let me see, do we currently report in this article the position of those countries and does this offer a new perspective? It doesn't, it fell neatly along exactly the same lines as before. And again you're avoiding the question, is this anything new in the context of this article - seeing as a summit of American states is only tangentially relevant to this article. It isn't. Again I draw your attention to WP:NOTNEWS. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, no Wee I'm not being needlessly combative, you are once again manipulating the facts to hide your reprehensible behavior. The only one who made any changes to the article while it was being discussed is you as I noted 4 comments above and this can be seen in the article's history. Only after that did I start reverting your changes until the version by Mcarling was reached and we returned to the talk page. It was you who, in the middle of the discussion, unilaterally went and deleted the whole paragraph.

Please tell me exactly which of the 4 points in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER you think applies to this issue, because none does as far as I can see.

I find it quite amusing to say the least that you only started to push for the removal of any mention of the Summit of the Americas, after I provided the references that state that full support for the Argentinian claim was not achieved due to Canada and the US neutral position. Prior to that you seemed to have no problem with it. I also notice that per your "nothing new" argument, the outcome of this summit would only be acceptable for its inclusion if the majority of countries had expressed their support for the British claim. If they expressed their support to the Argentinian claim (as they did) then it's "nothing new" and not worthy of even being mentioned. You are disregarding this forum based on its outcome, is this not WP:POV?

"And again you're avoiding the question, is this anything new in the context of this article", I can only assume at this point that you are trying to wear me out until I give up and quit or lose my temper and insult you so you can have me blocked. I've answered this three times already but here it goes once again: it is new in the context of this article since no other mention of this summit exists. The outcome of this last summit is new information relevant to this article. The fact that you feel that the Summit is "only tangentially relevant to this article" is not a reason to deny the inclusion of two perfectly acceptable sources or even worst, to completely remove any mention of it. Gaba p (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster is quite right. This is not newsworthy. An encyclopedia is not meant to include every trivial detail. Mcarling (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, you're constantly commenting on me, not my edits. Again I am compelled to answer an allegation made by you rather than my edits. If you think my edits are reprehensible then report me at WP:ANI, in fact I positively urge you to do so but I doubt you'd get the outcome you want and see WP:PETARD.

I am not disregarding this forum based on its outcome. I am suggesting reference to particular summits are removed to be replaced by a reference to the position of the countries involved. I see nothing of benefit to this article in continuously reporting SA summits where Argentina has tabled motions on the Falkland Islands.

Apart from anything else, Timmerman does have a history of claiming the support of countries which don't support Argentina's position [1][2] - shall we include that as well. If you really want to report on what was significant about the summit, it was that prior to the summit Argentina made a big fuss they were going to get a statement of support [3] and CFK left in a hissy fit because one was not forthcoming [4]. Shall we also include that? Per WP:NOTNEWS I suggest there was nothing of significance to the Falklands dispute, seeing as no country changed their position or suggested a new initiative. If fact there was nothing of any significance whatsoever - apart from CFK storming off in the huff when she didn't get what she wanted but as news item I wouldn't usually include that in an article. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Wee Curry Monster. The only thing newsworthy about the summit was CFK having a hissy fit and storming out. While CFK's antics are relevant to this article, I don't think they are significant enough to include here. Mcarling (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Now that I've found not one but two sources indicating that the support for the Argentinian claim in the Summit was pretty much total, the forum becomes not newsworthy and trivial. How funny this was not an issue before when the article said that Argentina had failed to gather support for a joint statement. Well there's not much I can do, it's two editors against one so I guess the Summit of the Americas (composed of 34 countries including the US, almost 100% of the American continents) is now a trivial and not newsworthy event.

I wonder, what would you have said if the outcome of that forum would have been a massive support to the British claim? Gaba p (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your hypothetical, if it were the status quo, it would not be newsworthy. It would not be newsworthy if the EU were announce support for Britain's claim because every member state of the EU has already officially recognized that the Falklands are legally Britain's through Annex II of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Lisbon). Is it newsworthy if the sun sets in the west? No, of course not. Would it be newsworthy if the sun set in the east? Yes, of course. Your hypothetical is analogous. Mcarling (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There are lots of international forums and the US is in many of them. That the US happens to be in this one does not make it noteworthy. I would note that for all the going on about "including the US", we must remember that the US did not voice support for Argentina at the summit. I find it difficult to see how this is particularly noteworthy for any reason other than that President Kirchner stormed out. And it's WP:RECENTISM. But if we are to mention it, the word "perceived" is wrong because it implies that by some other interpretation Argentina did successfully get support for a statement. Which is clearly inaccurate. Kahastok talk 21:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"I am suggesting reference to particular summits are removed to be replaced by a reference to the position of the countries involved.", are you suggesting we remove any reference to this summit and replace it by the individual positions of the countries involved?

Mcarling your hyperbolic analogy would make sense if this summit were addressed anywhere else (it'd have to be addressed countless times actually) It is not and I dare you to find a single reference to it in the entire article. Also, am I correct in understanding that had the outcome of the summit benefited the British claim then you would've had no problem in calling it newsworthy? Because that is definitely not what Wee said.

"That the US happens to be in this one does not make it noteworthy", no the fact that it encompasses almost the entirety of the American countries makes it notable. "the US did not voice support for Argentina at the summit", of course not, the US remains neutral and my edit said exactly that. "the word "perceived" is wrong because it implies that by some other interpretation Argentina did successfully get support for a statement. Which is clearly inaccurate", I agree. Argentina did not gather full support due to the positions of Canada and the US, the rest of the countries backed its claim and this is what the two references I provided stated. So why shouldn't this be said in the article? Gaba p (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would meet the newsworthy test (it might or might not meet other tests) if the OAS were to back Britain over the Falklands, just as it would be newsworthy if the EU were to back Argentina over the Falklands. Please try to keep to NPOV. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate personal political objectives. Mcarling (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I support Langus removing that sentence per WP:RECENTISM. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you answer my question please Wee? Did you suggest we remove any reference to this summit and replace it by the individual positions of the countries involved?

Mcarling I was just trying to correctly understand your position. You said you agreed with Wee, but then what you said is definitely not what Wee said. So which part did you agree with him specifically? "Please try to keep to NPOV", could you please tell me which part of any of my comments do you regard as POV? Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Bogus declaration

Just for the record, a recent development relevant to the article. The fresh OAS general assembly resolution says:

"... solving the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, Georgia del Sur y Sandwich del Sur Islands and the surrounding maritime areas in the framework of resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 of the United Nations General Assembly, the decisions adopted by the same body etc."

A preposterous text indeed, as none of those resolutions and decisions makes any reference whatsoever to "Georgia del Sur y Sandwich del Sur Islands and the surrounding maritime areas"!

One wonders, what kind of intergovernmental organization could issue such blatant untruths? Apcbg (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if there's no other point for creating this section than ranting, I believe it must be removed as per WP:NOTFORUM. I also quote Mcarling: "Wikipedia is not the place to advocate personal political objectives.". Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Article intro III

I'd like to resume the discussion that sadly had to be terminated after accusation started flying around. My position was that the sentence in the lede "Contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. They gained full citizenship with the..." be changed to "Contemporary Falkland Islanders gained full citizenship with the...". My view is that the way it is expressed now gives undue weight to a British claim. I copy/paste the last useful comment (the rest can be seen in the closed section):

Yes Mcarling "The right of self-determination means that they have the right to choose", I agree, that's why I think that stating that they choose to be British in the lede is the same as stating a British claim. Argentina does not recognize their right to self-determination (Argentinian claim) and the UK does (British claim) so my point is that by saying that they consider themselves to be British we are a priori accepting that they have this right thus favoring the British claim. That's why I think it should be left to the claims section.

I also add this WP guideline (taken from WP:NPOV_dispute):

“ The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

”

Gaba p (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, no, this is not stating a British claim, it is stating a verifiable fact. It is presenting background information and does not present or favour a British position relative to the sovereignty dispute. Again neutrality does not demand we present a British POV and an Argentine POV, we present both from a neutral peespective. We are presenting a fair and reasonable representation of the dispute. Your repeated assertion this is giving undue weight to a British claim is unproven and not a sustainable logical argument. Point of fact, Argentina relies on their British citizenship as part of its argument they do not enjoy the right to self-determination. If anything its presenting a fact relevant to the position of both parties.

Continuously reprising the same tired worn argument is disruptive and needs to stop. My suggestion is to simply close this immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"it is stating a verifiable fact" <-- "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.", WP guideline.

"does not present or favour a British position relative to the sovereignty dispute", it favors it since it takes for granted that they have the right to self-determination, something Argentina denies.

"neutrality does not demand we present a British POV and an Argentine POV, we present both from a neutral peespective", by just stating that the Falklanders consider themselves to be British we are a priori accepting that they have this right, thus favoring the British claim.

"We are presenting a fair and reasonable representation of the dispute.", it is not fair if you directly imply they are exercising the right to self-determination and never mention that Argentina does not concede them this right.

Your comment has no real argument Wee, you just keep repeating it's fair and verifiable.

"close this immediately", could you please don't start being aggressive? If you don't want to comment on the section then don't. Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That the islanders consider themselves to be British is one of the basic facts of this case, that both Britain and Argentina have to factor into their arguments. Nobody disputes this fact. It is a fact that is relevant to both sides, as both sides have to factor it into their argument. Just as Britain promotes self-determination as the means of resolving the dispute, Argentina is at pains to argue that it is inappropriate. That the islanders consider themselves British is not a British claim. It is one of the most basic facts of this case, and most certainly not something that we can just ignore or pretend doesn't exist.

You say that it "takes for granted that they have the right to self-determination". No it doesn't. It doesn't say or imply that self-determination is the crucial factor.

You say, [n]eutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. Even if this was entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy (and it isn't), there are no competing versions of this fact. It is not credibly disputed that the current inhabitants of the Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. But that's not how it works anyway. We need to present both POVs from a neutral perspective. That doesn't mean presenting two sides as equal when the evidence suggests that one side has got its facts wrong.

And I finally note that you're already getting into the personal stuff. One would have thought that recent experience would have demonstrated that this is not the way to get consensus. There is no point in this discussion continuing if you are unable to keep personalities out of it, as was demonstrated last time. Please desist from making personal remarks or else I'll have to close this discussion as well. Kahastok talk 19:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kahastok, but how am I getting into the personal stuff? You mean by asking Wee to please don't start being aggressive? I apologize if this was taken as a a personal remark, I just felt he commented the section somewhat aggressively (asking for its immediate closing is not exactly a friendly greeting) and so I asked him no to be aggressive. It is not my intention at all that this section takes the same road the other one did. See your own comment for example, it disagrees with mine completely but it does so in a civil and non-aggressive way. That's all I ask from Wee. Besides there's no need to close anything, if there's no consensus then nothing changes in the article, period. If my intention were to change it regardless of the opinions of other editors, I would've done it from the start rather than coming here to discuss it.

So back to the point: that the islanders consider themselves British is a non-arguable fact as I've mentioned already, so in this we agree 100%.

"You say, [n]eutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are.", I personally don't say this, it's directly quoted from the WP section WP:NPOV_dispute. It's clear that there is no competing version (no one claims the islanders consider themselves Argentinian) I quoted this article mainly for the first part of it where it states that simply because something is a fact, it doesn't mean it's automatically neutral which I believe fully applies in this case.

If the islanders didn't consider themselves to be British then the main British argument for maintaining its sovereignty claim over the islands would disappear. That they consider themselves British is not just an innocent background (undisputed) fact but a very important piece (the most important actually) in the British claim over the islands. Since this fact is already addressed later on in the article (so no information would be lost by removing it there), I propose to change the last sentences in the lede accordingly. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for this change, the arguments you're putting forward don't stack up and you're repeatedly bringing up the same discussion. This is disruptive and should stop, this thread should be closed. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee the section above this one is a clear candidate for closing/deletion, why haven't you touched that one? That you think my arguments are weak is clear but as I've said, I feel that you saying it's fair and verifiable is not a real argument against my proposal. Maybe some other editor would like to speak his mind about this (I know I'd like to hear Kahastok's reply if he wishes to), what's the harm in leaving this open to let them do it? Why target this discussion in particular when there are several others still open and clearly dead in the Talk page? I have not repeatedly brought up the same discussion, I only opened this one back in a different section after it was closed and couldn't be finished. There's no need to close it, so please stop doing it. Thanks.

Also if you could please stop by the first section an answer my question I'd really appreciate it. Gaba p (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What utter nonsense, as usual you've take a subset of my comments and are trying to play semantics rather than taking the comment on board. You're wasting a lot of editors time here, frivously raising issues that have no substance. You've had your answer, drop the stick.

And asking a question already answered won't get a different reply. Does everyone else agree with me this discussion is effectively over. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No Wee, I'm raising issues I consider important, I'm sorry you don't consider them as important, you are not forced to comment in any of them if you don't want to. In case you didn't notice I'm not using this as en excuse to edit the article, I'm just expressing my concerns in the talk page, why on earth does this bother you so much? I am not making any changes in the article unless there is an actual consensus and you are not obligated to comment. You also didn't address the issue of why you are singling out this section and not closing the one above which clearly deserves to be closed. Please focus on the content and not the editor.

If you check the first section you'll see you never actually answered my question: "Did you suggest we remove any reference to this summit and replace it by the individual positions of the countries involved?" I understand that you did and since a few weeks ago I made the exact same proposal I just want to check if we agree on this. Gaba p (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p, you seem so proud of your reasoning that without the Britishness of the Falkland Islanders there would have been no self-determination.

However, that’s quite fallacious.

The Islanders right to self-determination does not derive from their Britishness but from the fact that they are the people of the Falkland Islands.

As a people, they might be British and opt to disassociate themselves from the UK, or vice versa, be of non-British origins opting for association with the UK.

So you have no point here, subject closed. Apcbg (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think I quite understand what you are saying Apcbg, could you rephrase it a bit please? The fact that they have or don't have the right to self-determination is disputed: the UK claims the have it, Argentina claims they don't. The (undisputed) fact that they consider themselves British is currently the main British argument for maintaining its sovereignty claim. According to pretty much all of the recent statements by British politicians if the islanders suddenly chose to be Argentinian then by the right to self-determination the UK assigns to the Falklanders, the UK would have to drop its claim over the islands. Gaba p (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That the Falkland Islanders have the right of self-determination is not a British claim. It the Falkland Islanders' claim and the British have conceded the claim -- as have the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, the 4th committee, the C24, etc. The most support Argentina ever gets from other countries is "sit down and talk." No other country has ever, to my knowledge, backed Argentina by saying that the Falkland Islanders don't have the right of self-determination. The first sentence of Article I of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by nearly every country in the world, reads "All peoples have the right of self-determination." Taking seriously any claim that the Falkland Islanders do not have the right of self-determination makes as much as sense in the context of NPOV as taking seriously the claims that the earth is flat. Mcarling (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Taking seriously any claim that the Falkland Islanders do not have the right of self-determination makes as much as sense in the context of NPOV as taking seriously the claims that the earth is flat", that is 100% your POV and thus not relevant I'm afraid. That the islanders do not have that right is a bona fide Argentinian claim whether you think it's reasonable or not. Gaba p (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly an Argentine claim that the right of self-determination belongs to "all peoples" but not to the Falkland Islanders (along with the Argentine claims that the British expelled all the settlers from the Falklands in 1833, that none of them were ever allowed to return, that there was never a gap in their protests to Britain, that force was used by the British in 1833, etc., etc., etc.) but whether that claim is bona fides or not is in dispute. Mcarling (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, like I said the fact that it is an Argentine claim is bona fide, not the claim itself, that's a more complicated issue (and not one we should be judging as correct or incorrect; not in the article at least) Given that it's a disputed claim whether or not they have this right, stating that they consider themselves British without mentioning this dispute is not neutral. By only mentioning this, the article gives the sense that they have this right regardless of everything else and this is not true since that fact is currently disputed. Since this is mentioned later on in the article, nothing would be lost by trimming those words from the lede (just like we did with the last paragraph not long ago) and the article would be more balanced as a result. Gaba p (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaba, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Mcarling (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I believe it does but I respect that you (and apparently the rest of the editors commenting here) don't. Unless another editor comes in and agrees with me, I'd say this is it. Thanks for your input. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

On the inclusion of the FI 2013 sovereignty referendum

Recently Kahastok reverted my removal of the mention to this referendum. I argue that the same arguments used to remove the mention to the SOA 2012 can be used here and I fail to see how they don't apply. These arguments were:

• Wee argued the event felt under the category of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER saying:

“ The question that should be asked is does this represent a shift in anyone's opinion? The answer is no. Therefore its repeating information already in the article and its sirrelevant and tedious details. ”

Since this referendum changes no position whatsoever, Wee's statements fully apply.

• Mcarling argued it was not newsworthy saying:

“ It would not be newsworthy if the EU were announce support for Britain's claim (...) Is it newsworthy if the sun sets in the west? No, of course not. Would it be newsworthy if the sun set in the east? Yes, of course. ”

and

“ Of course it would meet the newsworthy test (it might or might not meet other tests) if the OAS were to back Britain over the Falklands, just as it would be newsworthy if the EU were to back Argentina over the Falklands. ”

to which Kahastok agreed:

“ I agree. There are lots of international forums and the US is in many of them. That the US happens to be in this one does not make it noteworthy. I would note that for all the going on about "including the US", we must remember that the US did not voice support for Argentina at the summit. I find it difficult to see how this is particularly noteworthy for any reason other than that President Kirchner stormed out. ”

Again given that this merely re-states the well known position of the islanders wanting to remain British, this argument applies.

• Finally Kahastok mentioned WP:RECENTISM to which Wee agreed and which was eventually used as the reason for removing the SOA 2012 mention by Langus. Could somebody please explain how does this guideline not apply considering this referendum hasn't even taken place yet?

Also, I would like to ask Kahastok if he could revert the article's state to that of last consensus (ie: with no mention of this referendum) until the matter is settled. Otherwise, if we just let it sit there, it becomes the status quo and then it's virtually impossible to touch as we all know. I'd do it myself but I don't want to be accused later on of gaming the 3RR. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is of course a fundamental difference here. Argentina routinely places the Falklands on the agenda of various summits in South America, which routinely pass some resolution pacifying Argentina by some asinine call for "negotiations". There is nothing new there, its rountine, happens almost on a weekly basis and never changes.

Equally we have seen various claims by Argentina that the people of the Falkland Islands are "hostages" of the British military [5].

The referendum as announced is new, there has never been one before and promises to give a definitive representation of the islander's views. Its also something that was key in Gibraltar and something sponsored, in Bermuda for example, by the C24 to gauge the feelings of the people on the C24 list. So in reality it is not the same at all.

That said I'm ambivalent about including it - at this point. I tend to avoid WP:RECENTISM and would prefer to wait a few weeks until the details and positions on various sides is clear. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, the referendum is newsworthy, for the reasons already stated above. On the other hand, it does suffer from recentism. I'm also ambivalent about this at this time. I would prefer to wait at least until the date of the referendum has been announced and the actual text of the referendum has been written and made public. Mcarling (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a tricky question. Is Cristina's 30th years since war conmemoration declarations not worthy of mention? The risk is that we end judging the British referendum more relevant than any other argentine civil act or political move. In my opinion the insertion of the referendum in the article should be accompained by an evaluation of whats newsworthy or not regarding the dispute in Argentina. If, hypothetically, nothing is new in the Argentine position how to keep the article balanced? —Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We should be dealing with this from a neutral perspective. Not from a British perspective and not from an Argentine perspective. You appear to be proposing that we need to "balance" this neutral fact with something from an Argentine perspective, which fails WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 18:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM neither means nor says that we cannot mention any recent event. Only that we have to take a long view of the subject. To help with this, it proposes the ten-year test:

“ In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here? ”

I find it difficult to see how the referendum is not going to be worthy of at least a mention in the history of this dispute ten years' time. We're not talking about a section devoted to it. Right now we're talking about a single line. OTOH I see no plausible way in which a hypothetical outcome of one particular routine regional summit, out of the dozens of routine regional summits that will have occurred, is likely to be similarly worthy of a mention.

By your logic, WP:RECENTISM means that we should not be making any reference to 2014 FIFA World Cup or the United States presidential election, 2012 anywhere on Wikipedia. After all, they haven't taken place yet either.

I would add that I don't appreciate being quoted out of context. I feel your quotes misrepresent my comment and would ask that you be far more careful in future. Kahastok talk 18:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonably certain that the referendum will still be relevant 10 years from now. It seems nearly as certain that anything Argentina might declare now (other than a renunciation of claims) will not be relevant 10 years from now. Mcarling (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mcarling, you really need to watch your provocative language. Especially because you're plainly wrong: Argentine claims to sovereignty are (and will be) relevant because it keeps the claim alive. I'm sure you've read in these articles about acquiescence.

Back on topic, while the relevance of such a referendum is clear, there's so little know about it at this stage that I would agree with WCM to hold the information for a few weeks. --Langus (t) 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Mcarling. First you are dismissing what the president of Argentina might declare and second what seems reasonable to me is that the relevance of a referendum that will change absolutely nothing about the current state of affairs is arguable. The UK will continue to use the self-determination as their (almost sole) claim for maintaining sovereignty (as they have so far without this referendum) and Argentina will continue to claim they do not possess such right so the existence of a referendum will mean nothing to it. Even so, I 100% agree to adding it as a reference of the claim that the islanders wish to be/remain British, but only once it has taken place. Any mention of it prior to that is WP:RECENTISM and in violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER to me.

"I find it difficult to see how the referendum is not going to be worthy of at least a mention in the history of this dispute ten years' time. We're not talking about a section devoted to it.", I can say the exact same thing about the SOA 2012 forum. "Right now we're talking about a single line.", I wanted to add two lines mentioning the SOA and Wee responded "Its only two lines is not a justification". "OTOH I see no plausible way in which a hypothetical outcome of one particular routine regional summit, out of the dozens of routine regional summits that will have occurred, is likely to be similarly worthy of a mention.", there is only one mention to any other summit (the Ibero-American Summit) and I don't understand why several editors keep repeating this as if the article already mentioned several American/Latin-American forums. Also, I personally give much more weight to a "routine regional summit" which encompasses tens of countries than to a referendum by the islanders of which we all know the outcome long before it happens.

"By your logic, WP:RECENTISM means that we should not be making any reference to 2014 FIFA World Cup or the United States presidential election, 2012 anywhere on Wikipedia. After all, they haven't taken place yet either.", you are comparing two worldwide events (the US presidential elections affects pretty much the entire world) with a referendum by no more than 2000 people on an issue that most of the world could care less about. This is hyperbolic argumentation.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to bring back the SOA 2012 mention (although I didn't agree to its removal), I'm simply trying to understand the reasoning behind the removal of that event versus the inclusion of this one, which right now seems like a double standard.

Kahastok, I added your full quote so you won't think I'm purposely misquoting you. For the record, I truly believe it says exactly the same that my reduced version of it and in no way did I mean to misrepresent your position. Gaba p (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your attempts to link yet another regional forum with the referendum is WP:POINTy. We discussed the Summit of the Americas. This is a discussion on the referendum. These points are separate.

It is apparent that you would like to turn this article into little more than a list of all the Latin American regional forums and what their outcomes were. Except in the case of the Summit of the Americas, what you actually want us to report is what you think the outcome might have been had things gone differently, which is even more tenuous.

If you genuinely think that that's going to appear in history books about the dispute in ten years' time, it is difficult not to be concerned about your ability to edit Wikipedia from a neutral perspective. OTOH, it is difficult to see how, in ten years' time, the fact of the referendum won't be mentioned. You may not like this, but that doesn't change that fact. Resolutions of Latin American regional summits are ten-a-penny. There has never been a referendum on this subject in the Falklands.

Your argument was that we should not mention the referendum because it hasn't happened yet. The US presidential election hasn't happened yet either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it in appropriate articles. You say that this is different because it's a referendum "by no more than 2000 people on an issue that most of the world could care less about". It seems to me that this argument applies to just about everything in the article. Nobody is putting a gun to our readers' heads and saying that they have to read a Wikipedia article about the dispute. Our readers will, pretty much by definitions, be the ones who are interested.

The fact that the islanders are only a few thousand is irrelevant to the fact of the referendum. Regardless of what either side in the dispute would like, their views are highly relevant to this dispute. That they will express these views formally by referendum next year cannot but be significant.

For those saying we should wait a few weeks, the obvious question is, why? In what way is the question of whether we include it or not liable to be fundamentally different in six weeks' time from what it is today? I see none. We normally wait to gain a more lasting idea of what the long-term impact of events will be. We might have a date and a question, but the fundamentals will be the same. I see no reason to wait. Kahastok talk 09:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I also consider my comments were taken out of context, I would imagine that others would feel the same. As I noted earlier I consider that the referendum will be relevant. However, we should avoid filling the article with a list of regional forums in which Argentina repeats its position and mentioning the referenda is not a wedge to be used to force it into the article. I'm certainly not suggesting 6 weeks but when details of the date, observers and referendum question are available, that it is the time to add it. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Your attempts to link yet another regional forum with the referendum is WP:POINT", what other regional forum are you talking about? I clearly stated I'm not even trying to bring back the SOA 2012, I just used it as a way to compare the standards for inclusion/rejection being used in the article.

"It is apparent that you would like to turn this article into little more than a list of all the Latin American regional forums and what their outcomes were", again: what are you talking about? When did I mention the inclusion of any other American forum? I repeat: I even said I'm not trying to bring the SOA 2012 back.

"Except in the case of the Summit of the Americas, what you actually want us to report is what you think the outcome might have been had things gone differently", I just have to keep asking: what are you talking about?? You mean the two references I presented which stated that only two countries (Canada & US) were responsible for not obtaining a full joint statement in the forum? I was quoting directly from (two) sources. If you mean something else, I have no idea what it is.

"If you genuinely think that that's going to appear in history books about the dispute in ten years' time, it is difficult not to be concerned about your ability to edit Wikipedia from a neutral perspective.", I'm sorry you are concerned but that's WP for you: a many people endeavor where you can't pick and choose who to work with. I too feel that several editors in this article do not respect NPOV so I guess we're even here. And just for the record: I believe my contributions to be NPOV always.

"OTOH, it is difficult to see how, in ten years' time, the fact of the referendum won't be mentioned.", I hardly find this difficult since it's just an anecdotal event. The position of the islanders has been well known for decades and this referendum won't change that. It's notable to the extent that this is the first time they'll be putting it on writing officially, but no more than that.

"Resolutions of Latin American regional summits are ten-a-penny", you keep thinking I'm trying to list every summit/forum in this article when I'm not even trying to bring back the most relevant one. I just have to ask you where did you come up whit this? Because in my previous comment I said: "I'm not trying to bring back the SOA 2012 mention", I don't see how I could have been more clear about it.

"The US presidential election hasn't happened yet either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it in appropriate articles. You say that this is different because it's a referendum "by no more than 2000 people on an issue that most of the world could care less about". It seems to me that this argument applies to just about everything in the article", and that's exactly why this is hyperbolic argumentation. You're comparing apples and oranges.

"Regardless of what either side in the dispute would like, their views are highly relevant to this dispute", actually their views are not really at all that important to Argentina (unless they decided to suddenly become Argentinian) since Argentina does not recognize their right to self-determination, hence what they feel like being is irrelevant.

"I also consider my comments were taken out of context, I would imagine that others would feel the same.", sigh... well Mcarling is the only one missing to feel taken out of context. Tell you what Wee, you tell me here what do you think the proper context for quoting your comment would have been and I'll edit my comment accordingly, how about that?

Again, I'm not trying to bring back the SOA 2012 mention, I'm trying to understand the differences between these events that would make one of them be erased from the article and the other mentioned even before it has taken place. Gaba p (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As many people around here are concerned with the long-term perspective and how things will be read ten years from now (to say a number), let me ask a question. Does this referendum take place in calm waters? Has everything been quiet and calmed during 2012 in regards to the dispute, with no diplomatic controversies, and then they called this referendum? Because that's what the future reader would understand when reading the proposed text. Either that part is expanded to mention the whole 2012 diplomatic crisis and its outcomes, or it is omited. Cambalachero (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well we could include a comment about Argentina escalating the rhetoric and making wild claims, demanding talks and then turning down a letter offering talks if you think that helps. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

^ Prima example of Wee's slanted position favoring the UK. Thanks Wee, no other editor could have summed up your POV better. Are you still concerned about my perceived POV Kahastok? Gaba p (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Prime example of someone engaging in personal attacks prompted by Projection bias, Argentina refuses to receive invitation to dialogue from the Falklands’ government - clear offer for talks, summarily dismissed. Argentine election fever: minister accuses UK of keeping hostage “2000 Falklands’ Islanders” - prime example of some of the ludicrous claims made by Argentina. This is before we even get onto the Argentine president's stunt of flying a 757 full of hangers-on to New York and preaching about planting turnips and flying birds. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Langus is making personal attacks against me. My statement was not provocative. It is he who is plainly wrong regarding acquiescence. Either the principle of acquiescence is valid (which the ICJ said it is in the 2008 Pedra Branca case) or it's not. If it's valid, then Argentina lost any claims to the Falklands in the 19th century and so failing now to keep up the renewed claims would be irrelevant. If it's not valid, then failing now to keep up the renewed claims would be still be irrelevant.

Gaba, you call WCM POV just because he exposes your own POV. Shame. Mcarling (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"...some of the ludicrous claims made by Argentina. This is before we even get onto the Argentine president's stunt of flying a 757 full of hangers-on to New York and preaching about planting turnips and flying birds.", you keep doing it Wee, exposing your bias a little more each time. Your lack of respect for Argentina, the Argentinian people and its politicians is amazing; the sad thing is that by doing this you lower the overall status of the discussion and consistently chip away at your position as a neutral bystander on the issue.

No Mcarling, continuous attacks by Wee to Argentina's president (and other members of the government) show a clear favoritism towards the UK he couldn't hide even if he tried. Try this, put yourself in the shoes of an Argentinian coming here and having to read Wee's attacks and persistent mockery to his/her political representatives and tell me how would you see it then. I can only assume the reason you feel the need to side by him in 90% of your comments is that you agree with him on that his behavior towards the Argentinian president (and its inhabitants in general) is acceptable, which is a real shame. Gaba p (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And about your "references": the first is an (inflammatory) letter sent by the Falklands government, not by the UK government which is the one Argentina wants to negotiate with (but of course you know this, you're just trying to throw some mud over Argentina as you usually tend to do) The second one is a statement by an Argentinian military of which you say represents a "prime example". This is a lie (again: you know this) I dare you to find another current reference by an Argentinian politician saying that the islanders are being kept hostage. This was a one-time faux-pas you referred to as "we have seen various claims by Argentina that the people of the Falkland Islands are "hostages" of the British military". Really? Have you any other current reference to back this "various claims" claim? Gaba p (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

To me the WCM sources are "Troll references" seems to be more chosen to troll than bring the discussion forward. How big is the relevance of the Falklands British goverment if its not recognised as legitime counterpart on soverignity topics by Argentina? –Chiton (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As I see nothing in reply but blatant bad faith attacks , I conclude you have no real argument but seek to digress discussion into trivia. Chiton, Argentina demands talks constantly, well they just got what they asked for, if it refuses to recognise democratically elected representatives how can it ever get what it allegedly wants. As for CFK her presence was a stunt and nothing else. If I dismiss a speech full of lies and ridiculous hyperbole for what it is, well if you`re embarassed your problem not mine. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Falklands British government is very, very relevant because so says the UK Government which presumably is recognised as legitime counterpart on soverignity topics by Argentina. If the latter government may negotiate, then they may as well authorize representatives (e.g. the Falklands British government) to do that on their behalf. Apcbg (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note how Wee first tried to side-track the discussion (which he sadly temporarily accomplished) with his empty comment "Well we could include a comment about Argentina escalating the rhetoric and making wild claims, demanding talks and then turning down a letter offering talks if you think that helps." designed to this effect, to later on try to smear Argentina with bad faith references and finally put himself in the position of an editor under attack. Also note how he refuses to answer questions raised by his questionable attempt to diminish the Argentinian claim and obvious contempt and disrespectful attitude towards the president of said country; a sucker-punch then run & hide tactic also used typically by internet trolls.

Anyway, back to the topic. Apcbg the question to me is not if the Falklands government is relevant but whether this referendum is. Since it will only put in writing the known position of the islanders, is it notable enough to be added to the article? I say it is not, but it will be a perfect reference for the claim that the islanders wish to be/remain British. My position is to add the referendum only once it has passed and as a reference for such claim. Gaba p (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaba P, you can quit the rhetoric no one is impressed. As to the Argentine president, as a former soldier I find her comments about the Argentine servicemen interred in the Falklands in the worst possible taste. The British Government offered long ago to repatriate the remains, it was refused by the Argentine Government, they asked for assistance in identifying the dead, that was refused, they have facilitated the visits of the bereaved families, even in the face of direct obstruction by the Argentine Government. They buried the dead in a purpose built cemetery on land donated so they could have a christian burial rather than rot in battlefield graves. And yet in 2012 she stood at the United Nations and lied to the world claiming that the British obstructed the families. Her remarks are beneath contempt and I make no apology for holding her in utter contempt. An "inflammatory letter"? An invite to the talks demanded? Mmm, I think someone has clearly demonstrated their nationalist POV agenda. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't care for the Argentinian president and that is just fine, it's your choice. Just try not to let it show so much in WP, this is not your blog where you can rant about Argentinian politicians and how much you dislike them. This is a delicate article where your continuous mockery and defamation directed at Argentina's political representatives is disruptive and downright trollish. You don't see anyone else here disrespectfully commenting on Cameron or any member of his staff (or their actions)

"An "inflammatory letter"?", yes Wee it is an inflammatory letter aimed at attacking the Argentinian government and its position on this issue. If you read the letter (or your own quoted article) you'll see that it starts with: "we are writing with one very simple purpose, to ask that the Argentine government ends its campaign of harassment and intimidation against Falkland Islanders, and allows us to live in peace in our Islands, which have been our home for almost 180 years". A letter that asks for negotiations to a given country while at the same time accusing it of a "campaign of harassment and intimidation" can hardly be regarded as nothing else. Not to mention the fact that Argentina never asked to negotiate with the islanders, it has always been the UK who Argentina has called for negotiation and who has systematically refused; which makes this letter all the more irrelevant and ill-willed. Your nationalistic agenda is as clear as day Wee but hey, go ahead and keep accusing everyone else of having one. As they say in my country: "Miente miente que algo queda". Gaba p (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p, WCM's comments about CFK are not defamatory for the simple reason that his comments are true. Truth is always a defense against defamation. On the other hand, your continuing defamation of WCM is tiring and inappropriate. Mcarling (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's really sad that you feel that way about Argentina's president Mcarling, but insulting and mocking (at times borderline misogynistic; ie: hissy fit) is you prerogative too. I would just ask you the same I asked Wee: keep it to yourself (or your personal site or anywhere but here) WP is not the place to throw mud over anybody and even less so in an article about such a delicate topic where people could get really offended really quick (and given the way you an Wee refer to CFK, they would have a perfectly valid reason) If you both could manage to maintain a civil attitude towards Argentina's political representatives, the tone of every discussion in this article would improve greatly. Gaba p (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the unjustified overreactions to my proposal, my answer is yes. Write an article on the whole 2012 diplomatic crisis and its outcomes (which include both the forums and the referendum), and all the things sad and replied. Does this include "Argentina escalating the rhetoric" etc etc? Of course it does. And the British replies (which were not exactly trying to cool down the conflict) should be mentioned as well. Cambalachero (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I was already considering writing such an article. However, I am curious as to exactly which British reply is supposedly inflammatory?

As to the referendum, no this should be mentioned very soon, it should not wait till the actual result. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

There's a mention in the article that says "In 1841, General Rosas offered to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to Barings Bank in the City of London. The British Government chose to ignore the offer." Actually, the existence of such a proposal is disputed, as I described here. First, because the proposal made no sense, and second, because fact-checking historians sought info about it at the Foreign Office and found none. However, this info was removed by WCM here as "irrelevant comment".

First of all: it is not me who says that the proposal makes no sense, it is Marcial Quiroga. Cited by yet another historian, to confirm his notability. At that point, Britain had both the islands and the Argentine debt. Why would Britain pardon the Argentine debt in exchange of something they already had as well? It is clear, from it's very enunciation, that such a proposal would never be accepted. Which leads to more complicated questions: why would Rosas bother at all to make a proposal doomed to failure? If he was truly interested in getting rid of the debt taken by Rivadavia, why didn't he tried to negotiate with something else, something that was actually within his power to give? I can think of several examples of other things he could have offered to Britain.

But second and more important, this proposal is just a cliche, something that most people take as truth by force of repetition, because an author saw it somewhere and repeated it, and another one saw it as well and also repeated... and then an author tries to actually check the source documents rather than take the "it's written in several places so it must be true" approach, and finds that no documents actually support the thing. Should we mention the misconception as it is usually taken, or should we mention it and follow it with the authors that found that it does not stand a fact-checking in source documents? Yes, it's a rhetoric question: this very issue was discussed shortly ago. Simply apply the same rationale proposed by then. Unless some author actually finds the documents about this purported negotiation, the fact that Ferns did not find any will stand, and it can not be considered "irrelevant" or held against parrot sources that merely state something without fact-checking it.

Of course, the specific wording may be improved. I know that "it is said" is a bit vague, but the misconception is not held by a specific author or source, it's just a common misconception. Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is said is plain weasel wording to cast doubt against a WP:FACT based on the WP:OPINION of someone else. And I find it more than a little ironic you're preaching about force of repetition given Argentine claims of a so-called expulsion in 1833 that never actually happened. It is a verifiable historical fact per WP:V and just because your WP:OR leads you to believe different is not an excuse to vandalise the article with your personal opinions. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not discussing about the settlers here, but about Rosas' purported proposal. There are no records on the foreign office about this purported proposal, as pointed by Ferns. Quiroga's concerns about the lack of sense of it simply reinforce the idea, but it is not the core. Yes, there is a doubt being casted on the proposal attributed to Rosas, because the original documents detailing it are nowhere to be found, as reported by a historian who sought them. There is no original research anywhere here. The opinions cited in the article are not mine, the investigation in the Foreign office is not mine. In fact, compare the sources: I cited a history book and reputed historians, and the paragraph as it is merely cites an entry of a timeline in a web page Cambalachero (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

All I can see is a statment that the UK reluctance to recognose Argentians soverty made the proposal pointless, not that it ws not made.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The text says the offer was "to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims" not to cede sovereignty. While the British had possession and sovereignty at that point, they didn't have the Argentine claim i.e. Argentine recognition of British sovereignty, so the proposal was not pointless at all. Apcbg (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the "fact-checking-against-contemporary-sources" philosophy of most editors here, it follows we should investigate this thoroughly... am I right? (Oh, the irony...) --Langus (t) 19:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you couldn't resist the chance to make a barbed comment. By all means check it out but there is big difference between basing an edit on the opinion of one author, when the historical record says different, ands basing an edit on history distorted for the purpose of advancing an irredentist agenda. Wee Curry Monster talk

I will cite the text of the book I'm talk about, "Imposturas históricas e identidad nacional" by Marcelo Lascano. First, in its original languaje

“ La entrega de las islas Malvinas al usurpador británico a cambio de la cancelación del empréstito Baring constituye otro eslabón de la cadena de difamaciones a la que fue sometido este caudillo desde su destitución. En su obra Manuel Moreno, Marcial I. Quiroga, menciona que la transacción no "tenía probabilidad de ser practicable" porque suponía el reconocimiento inglés de la soberanía siempre negada con pretextos legales y seguramente se traduciría en la necesidad de negociar las indemnizaciones que reclamaba la Confederación desde la usurpación en 1833. Ferns agrega que entre los "documentos del Foreign Office no hay ninguno que (...) pruebe" el ofrecimiento de marras. ”

In English, he says

“ The surrender of the Falkland Islands to the British usurper in exchange for the cancellation of the Baring loan is another link in the chain of defamations to which this leader was subjected since his dismissal. In his work Manuel Moreno, Marcial I. Quiroga, mentions that the transaction had "no chances to be practicable" because it implied the British recognition of the sovereignty, always denied with legal pretexts, and would probably result in the need to negotiate the compensations requested by the Confederacy since the usurpation in 1833. Ferns added that among the "Foreign Office documents there is none that (...) proves" the aforementoned offering. ”

As you see, it's not a single author but three (an author, Lascano, cites other authors to reinforce his point). And what is the "historical record" supposed to be? The archives of the original contemporary documents? Because it is Ferns, not the many "parrot sources", who has checked it. If a single author who checked the historical record says one thing, and many other "parrot sources" say the opposite, but without offering counter-documents to back up their claims, then the single author would still prevail.

As a user that WCM must surely respect would say, its a claim by Britain that Rosas offered the islands, the historical record shows this is actually untrue. A lie is a lie. Claiming it is an "fact" doesn't make it true and we mention what Britain claims. You can assert it is a fact that black is white but you'll only manage to kill yourself on a pedestrian crossing. This has nothing to do with POV. Cambalachero (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No its not a claim by Britain, since I have seen Argentine documents that report the same claim. Humbert F. Burzio: “Rozas, el empréstito inglés de 1824 y las Islas Malvinas”, in Boletín del Centro Naval, Buenos Aires, January/February 1944, p. 647ff The offer was made by Rosas to Franck de Pallacieu Falconet, the Baring emissary. Manuel Moreno also made the offer to British Foreign Secretary Lord Aberdeen, who turned it down and it was Moreno who reports that it was because the British rejected the Argentine sovereignty claim. And it is a single author making such a claim, reported by others - did they for example check his assertion. There are too many contemporary documents that repeat the same fact, both British and Argentine, so it is a very extraordinary claim, which does require proof.

Your attempt to spin this as a nationalist agenda is not helpful, its not as if it is a disputed fact by either side. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen such parrot sources in Argentina as well. My last paragraph was actually pointing your double standards here: fact-checking outweights a majority of unreferenced sources, or not, according to whose claim will be benefited (that's why I copied most of the text of a reply you gave at an analogous discussion, changing just the specific details). A libel is a libel, a parrot source is a parrot source and a fact-checked statement is a fact-checked statement, regardless of nationality (as, in this case, this is actually a dispute between Argentine historians about Rosas, caused by XIX century Argentines that made several unsourced libels against him for domestic reasons that do not involve Britain or the Malvinas more than in a tangential manner). Cambalachero (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We need someone to check Fern, I have dne a quick Gbooks search and can find no passage that matches the one given by Marcelo Lascano.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The ISBN of Lascano's book is 950-02-5900-1. The book of H. S. Ferns cited in the book bibliography is "Gran Bretaña y la Argentina en el siglo XIX", Solar, Buenos Aires, 1968 Cambalachero (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Britain_and_Argentina_in_the_nineteenth.html?id=3sFPAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y dose not (as far as I can tell) contain the quoted passage, so again I will ask for someone with access to the book to confirm that the alleged passage is present.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I will decline this topic for some time, until I get a copy of Ferns book. I can not locate the original passage with mere snippets. Cambalachero (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And I can't find it either, though I do know someone with the book and I've asked them to check for me. If you check the 1977 reprint, on p.224 there is a passage that acknowledges the offer made to Baring's agent. It would appear the reference quoted may in fact contradict the author's claim. I will just note that initially you were asserting this was solely a British claim and were singularly unpleasant in attacking me personally, the second I point out an Argentine source saying the same thing, thats simply waved away. We call that "moving the goal posts". Wee Curry Monster talk 15:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Another Ferns reference [6] p.87

“ In order to improve his credit rating he was willing to exchange the Argentine claim to the Falklands for cancellation of the Baring loan, but inasmuch as the British government had effective possession of the islands they refused to exchange the claims of a group of bondholders for a real asset. ”

I'm not impressed by the thoroughness of your researchers either, since some of the relevant letters are in Archivo General de la Nacion in Buenos Aires. Give me time I can get the reference for you to check yourself. So it looks like the contemporary sources do back up what all those historians report and the source you mention actually contradicts what the authors claim. What were you saying about "parrot sources"? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)