Talk:Self-determination/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be formal mediation. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is related to this discussion. I've been referred to this page from the following website: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/26/spain-s-rich-catalonia-region-calls-snap-election-demanding-self-determination Anyone reading the comment section on the bottom of that page and on other pages on that website can clearly see the heated debate and disagreements between various parts about the issue of the Malvinas/Falklands. The vast majority are well organised anti-Argentinian groups.92.4.151.194 (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Incomprehensible lead

The first sentence of the article (which seems to end "principle points of the Charter", in spite of the stop after "result"") is completely garbled. If I could work out what it was meant to say I would fix it myself, but I can't.AdeMiami (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia

The double standards of the UK government's rhetoric must be debated and challenged. The UK is trying to apply its own self-serving interpretation of self-determination to the case of the South Atlantic islands. At the same time the UK refuses to apply the same arguments equally to the case of the expelled Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia inhabitants. --92.4.146.140 (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is not to debate what any government believes or does not believe. It is to state their respective opinions with a suitable and reliable citation and without personal comment of any kind. Mugginsx (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the debate section of Wikipedia and is called 'Talk'. That is meant to debate, then find a common ground and edit the main article. That's what I am talking about. I'm not asking you to debate this issue on the article itself. I'm just throwing in the issue of the Chagos and Diego Garcia islands' inhabitants, since the UK government is doublespeaking on this issue. The expelled population of those islands have the same right to the UK's version of self-determination, don't they?--92.2.79.188 (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Present the facts of the case and not your own opinions. There is a well-written article already, Depopulation of Diego Garcia and the two cases are not exactly comparable. The Chagos population were contract workers who didn't actually own any of the territory, they were dependent on external supplies, the economy was based on Copra, with a declining world demand and a single employer. Its also not a case of just the UK Government, as the UK Government paid a grant to the Government of Mauritius to relocate the islanders but that Government did not use the funds for their intended purpose. If you're aware of the actual history, the British Government of the 1960s also contemplated handing over the Falkland Islands to Argentina to get rid of them. The actions of the Government of the 1960s quite often did not take the wishes of the population into account, they were quite reprehensible to us now. This does not mean that the current Government continues that policy or is operating a double standard. Linking two separate cases, to make a point is not what wikipedia is about. This is an encyclopedia not a debating forum. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster, this is the debating section of Wikipedia, and has been created with the specific purpose of fostering debate, and debates are always embedded with opinions, yours, mine or someone else's.
The facts surrounding any argument are always dependent on one's point of view, and this case is not an exception. Specifically in the case of the concept of self-determination, there is a plethora of information out there that proves there's inconsistency of its interpretation and application to different cases, and the reason for this is exactly the difficulty of navigating through different interests and opinions.
The South Atlantic islands and the Indian Ocean islands are inserted in a wider context of geopolitical and economic dimension, and the national interests of the UK play a huge part on how it interprets and applies the concept of self-determination.
I would ask you to present opinions and facts in relation to the right of self-determination applied to the population of the Chagos and Diego Garcia islands. That's what we are talking about here. The intention is to gather information about the rights of self-determination applied to them and include their case in the main article. That's the direction we must take, but first one needs to recognise they have a right to self-determine their own future. Do you recognise it or deny?
Ethnic cleansing crimes in the 60s were already as reprehensible then as they are now, but some people were and some still are embroiled in a curtain of misinformation, so they were and are incapable of having informed opinions. That's the reason some are just now awakening to this awful tragedy. I hope I don't need to point out to you who are the perpetrators of this crime.
The fact is that the population of the Chagos archipelago is still fighting through the courts to make the UK government recognise and respect their human rights so they can be compensated for all the crimes they have sufferd in the past, and also for the ones being methodically and currently implemented in the present day, and return to their homeland.--92.2.93.148 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Your impression that talk pages are for "debate" is misinformed and your use of emotive language is unacceptable and unnecessary. Talk pages exist for discussion of content, based on what reliable 3rd party sources say. WP:FACT not WP:OPINION ie we present the facts as found in reliable 3rd party sources, we don't present opinion, especially our own. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you're engaged in WP:OR, which is not acceptable content here. Your strongly held opinions do not trump WP:5P. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes Indeed Wee! Here it is for those who may not be familiar.
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. In addition the Lead - if you want to call it that, makes no sense and has incomplete sentences. It looks like it was written by someone to whom English is not their primary language. I tried to fix some of it but am not familiar enough with the subject.Mugginsx (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Shall I find instances where either of you have expressed your own personal opinions on this or other Talk pages? (...should not be used by editors AS PLATFORMS...) does not mean people are forbidden to express opinions, but only to transform them in platforms. Opinions are naturally part and parcel of any conversation, anywhere, and as though Wikipedia tries to foster as much neutrality on the main article as it can, it is not however trying to prohibit a normal and healthy debate on the Talk pages, as it appears you both are trying to infer.
I have introduced the issue of self-determination in relation to the population of the Chagos archipelago. This is what you both should be concentrating on.--92.2.93.148 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll tell you what you should be concentrating on - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Blocking policy Disruption. That is where you and this article is likely going if you do not stop hypothesizing about an abstract idea and start editing to improve this article --- that is - if you even know how to improve it. In addition the Lead - if you want to call it that, makes no sense and has incomplete sentences. It looks like it was written by someone to whom English is not their primary or even their secondary language. I tried to fix some of it but am not familiar enough with the particular subject matter. I am personally sick of your rhetoric here. Get busy and get off the talk page unless you are going to discuss how to improve the article. Mugginsx (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I am already improving this article by having introduced the issue of self-determination as applied to the inhabitants of the Chagos archipelago. I want to gather information prior to editing the main article. Your threats of deletion are unwarranted and unjustified.
You can help by trying to find information on this issue, instead of making threats.
For example: http://www.globalresearch.ca/britain-and-the-empire-falklands-and-chagos-a-tale-of-two-islands/29884
The above website clearly mentions that the issue of self-determination applied to the South Atlantic islands reverberates to other similar cases, such as the Chagos islands.--92.2.93.148 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
You have not made one edit on this article. I've done more work on this article than you, as any fool can see. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not competing with anybody in the amount of work done, and I'll edit the main article when I feel satisfied I have enough information on the subject, with or without your help.--92.2.93.148 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey you want to find examples of my personal opinion in a talk page? Go for it, I'm sure you'll find some if you look hard enough. Difference is, I've learnt better. And if you try to force material based upon your personal opinion into the article, it will be reverted. You might also like to read WP:SPS and WP:RS, ie the blog you just referenced isn't considered a reliable source. Wikipedia presents a WP:NPOV based on material culled from reliable 3rd party sources, it isn't an excuse for a polemic. You fall into the classic category of wanting to use wikipedia to right WP:GREATWRONGS. In case you hadn't noticed, the wikilinks provided are intended for guidance, people are trying to point you toward relevant policy. You appear to be presuming some personal agenda to frustrate your agenda to right great wrongs. Sorry no, people are gently trying to tell you that isn't what wikipedia is for. My advice would be to think about starting a blog where you can tell the entire world about great wrongs. Have a nice day now. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

As indicated above by User:AdeMiami as well as myself, the Lead is completely incomprehensible. The article has a very low readability score and is not written in encyclopedic style. It needs work or the Article needs to be deleted. WP:LEAD. Mugginsx (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone added a whole bunch of stuff to lead since last time I looked, material which can be briefly summarized and otherwise belongs in later sections as important detail. Looks like a lot more unnecessary and/or unsourced detail about history and specific movements also could be cut down. It comes back to me now that there was a very stubborn editor who insisted on a lot of questionable material when I first worked on this when I was new to Wikipedia. Guess I could clean it up now without allowing all the nonsense to survive. CarolMooreDC 06:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Tag - Falkland Islands

As regards the Falkland Islands tag, it is there for a very good reason.

Argentina claims that in 1833 there was an expulsion of a settled Argentine population. This is untrue, it didn't happen. It has only entered the modern lexicon following a speech at the UN in 1964 by the Argentine ambassador Ruda. Argentina uses this to claim that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right to self-determination.

Two editors have edit warred text into the article, which attempts to buttress the Argentine claim by quoting authors out of context, attributing to them a meaning the original author did not intend. The text as a result is no longer neutral but is actually attempting to portray there is historical evidence to support Argentine claims when in fact none exists. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is thoroughly sourced and can not be obscured just because you don't like it Wee. Three sources are right now in place sourcing the statement and I can produce more if necessary. Your WP:OR is not a substitute for sourced statements by historians. This issue was raised at RS/N and the reccomendation was to use the Risman book (currently one of the 3 sources used) to source the statement. Three editors agreed on this (including myself and the editor who reccommended the book) and Wee edit-warred the NPOV template after not getting his way with that section. I tried to remove the template not long ago since no other editor discussed the issue at the talk page but was immediately reverted by Wee. Now an uninvolved editor has also removed the template and Wee instantly reverted again. A third editor (Langus) reverted Wee and he reverted once again. Wee is edit-warring to keep a statement completely sourced out of WP and this is not acceptable. This issue brought us to ANI and a topic ban was proposed by an admin which I gladly accepted but Wee completely refused (just before storming off to his "retirement") I'd advice him to revise his attitude towards WP and the use of his own WP:OR and WP:SYN in his edits. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I share Wee's reasoning. Apcbg (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
WCM, what those secondary sources are hinting is that your particular interpretation of "Argentine population" or "Argentine inhabitants" is not shared by every secondary source. You must accept this fact at some point. I urge you and Apcbg to read again the comments received at WP:RSN, and the instructions for template use at Template:POV. --Langus (t) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
A secondary source might be reliable in some respects and not so in other. Secondary sources claiming that the Argentine settlers were removed are not reliable in that respect; do they cite any primary source (in order to be secondary), and is what they claim to quote actually present in the primary source? Apcbg (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg if you take the time to read the the comments received at WP:RSN you'll see that not only is what Wee (and now you) does WP:OR and WP:SYN but that in order to dismiss a secondary source published by a publishing house as the ones used in the section, you need a reliable source that analyzes it and dismisses it for some reason (like what happened with Lopez's book) What you attempt to do is what Wee does and what was adviced to him to stop doing if he wished to remain editing in WP (again, go read the discussion at RS/N)
If you have a valid reason as to why neither of those three sources are reliable to source the statement then please state them here for all editors to see. Otherwise I'd ask you to please self-rv so we can leave that section alone. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. The sentence is an example of abusing sources by quoting them out of context to infer a meaning the original author did not intend. In this case Risman is quoted out of context to imply there is some support in the historical record for the central facet of the Argentine claim that the settlement was expelled. Notably Risman actually suppports the general historical convention that only the garrison was expelled.
  2. The issue is not the reliability of the source, rather that the source is being abused. The above comments demonstrate that this is clearly the issue. The replies from the two editors do not addres this point but raise irrelevant issues.
  3. The discussion at WP:RSN did not mandate the use of Risman in this manner.
  4. I and Apcbg are not interpreting sources, we reflect the opinions of neutral academic sources.
  5. The purpose of the NPOV tag is to bring attention to other editors the nature of the issue and invite them to enter the debate. This is the correct use of a NPOV tag.
  6. I note that I am simply commenting on content not editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The questionable statement “Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British.” refers to three sources. I have no access to the first two (and cannot verify if their reliability has actually been established) but would be interested to see what exactly do they have to say on the issue. As for the third one, I'm removing it as not pertaining because (1) it does not support the above statement as its quote reads "Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right." To expel Argentina and to expel the Argentine settlers are two quite different things indeed; and (2), that third source is not secondary in the first place as it refers to no primary source whatsoever; and being published in 2012 it is not primary either. Apcbg (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
First I note that the word "inhabitants" can refer indistinctively to the civilian settlers, the government authorities and the military garrison or all together. This said, the sources read:
  1. Risman p. 306: "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders." (taken from the discussion at RS/N, so reliability is established) Risman mentions "inhabitants" literally.
  2. Bulmer p 3.: "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833" (also taken from the discussion at RS/N). Bulmer states that "Argentina" was expelled. How is this not similar to saying "Argentine inhabitants"? How else would you phrase this sentence?
  3. Escudé is a notable historian recommended at the same RS/N discussion (Apcbg: I'd urge you to read said discussion). In the article referenced he says righ after the quoted text: "With arrogance, the superpower of the time, Britain, sent a powerful frigate, took our people as prisoners, chartered them to Montevideo, lowered our imperial flag and hoisted the Union Jack." The word used in spanish by Escudé is "pobladores"; translations for this word are: people, residents, villagers, settlers and inhabitants. Once again, the source 100% backs the sentence.
This has already been at RS/N and Wee was told to stop his WP:OR and WP:SYN by two uninvolved editors. His claim that the sources do not reflect the statement is nothing but an excuse to obscure historical views he does not agree with and it is not an acceptable behavior. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
If Risman, Bulmer and Escudé do not refer to specific primary sources for their statements given above, then they are not secondary sources for the present purposes. This is not dealt with, so I cannot see them established as reliable secondary sources.
What is the primary source for Risman's claim that "Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands"?
Regarding Bulmer, as already pointed out the statements 'expelled Argentina' and 'expelled the Argentine settlers' are not equivalent; 'similar' they might be, but similar means different.
As for Escudé, he has no primary source; and I also wonder if his statement actually claims that all Argentine settlers were taken prisoners, or some of them — which is not good enough. Apcbg (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg you are incurring in exactly the same behavior as Wee: WP:OR and WP:SYN. All three of them are of course secondary sources, if you you wish to disregard them as not valid then you need to go to RS/N and get consensus over there. I remind you that the Risman book was adviced as a reliable source at RS/N. Two published books and an article written by a notable historian are without a doubt valid secondary sources, you questioning their primary sources is WP:OR. If your concern is Bulmer saying "expelled Argentina" rather than "Argentine inhabitants" let me ask you: what do you infer from the statement "expelled Argentina"? Are you saying that it is not clear that it refers to its inhabitants and that it could be confused with the expelling of the whole country? Would you be more comfortable if we quoted the exact statements by Risman, Bulmer and Escudé so as to remove the problem with interpretation? I would have no problem doing so. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry you have failed to address any of my points made above. Apcbg (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking a brief look at the RSN discussion, I note points where Gaba implies backing from RSN that was never suggested in the RSN discussion.

Gaba's quotes are not nearly as unequivocal as he takes them to be, and his argument that it is WP:OR to read the source in any way other than he does is singularly unconvincing. I find the argument for the status quo similarly unconvincing. I note in any case that RSN is not there to judge matters of neutrality, only of reliability, so even if Gaba's claims were all accurate, they would still not imply that the status quo is neutral.

I would suggest that the weight here is misapplied. The current text implies that the weight of opinion supports the Argentine position, which I would suggest is not an accurate or neutral representation of the sources. The NPOV tag should remain until the article is improved such as to remove the bias. Kahastok talk 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Apcbg: I did. Your attempts to disregard published sources as "not secondary sources" is WP:OR. Your attitude right now is clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Kahastok: if you have a problem with the literal interpretation of quotes then we can simply quote them in full verbatim. As for WP:WEIGHT, the current text implies no such thing. It only mentions what other historians say about the event and neither Wee nor Apcbg nor you seem to be able to come up with a valid reason to obscure such sources. As I said, I would have no problem in quoting every historian we can find commenting the event verbatim. That of course would turn this little section into an article by itself, but I can't think of a better compromise. If you or Wee or Apcbg have a better idea then please present it. You are the ones supporting the NPOV tag so present a better alternative and we can discuss it. Until then if you whish to leave the NPOV tag up there then so be it.
Regarding this claim "Taking a brief look at the RSN discussion, I note points where Gaba implies backing from RSN that was never suggested in the RSN discussion.", would you mind pointing to which points I made that are not backed by the discussion at RS/N please? Because it seems to me you are directly accusing me of lying. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The claim in the article supported by these three sources is Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British.
1. Risman p.300 explicitly states that the garrison was expelled. Risman actually supports the conventional academic view that the garrison but not the settlement was expelled. On p.306 he ambiguously refers to inhabitants, so to quote only one fragment of text, claiming that the reference supports the Argentine claim is utterly misleading. The source does not support the claim attributed to it.
2. Bulmer is also referring to the explusion of the garrison, as noted by the phrase established a political and military command there in 1829. Clearly Bulmer does not support the claim made, this is citation fraud pure and simple.
3. Escude is rather odd. He refers to a frigate, prisoners and a transport to Montevideo. None of which relates to the events of 1833 but seem to be a reference to the USS Lexington raid of 1831. Britain sent a Brig-sloop, HMS Clio, took no prisoners and did not transport anyone. The settlers who chose to leave, left on the ARA Sarandi.
None of these sources support the claim that is made in the article, the sources are being abused to make a claim they do not sustain. It fails WP:V. This is neither WP:OR or WP:SYN, the sources don't support the claim made. It should be removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
1. You are lying Wee. Risman p. 300 states: "Indeed, within three months, two British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison". Having "orders to expel" does not equate to "expelling". You know this and you are now lying. The sentence you refer to is located six pages before the quoted statement by Risman. There is no ambiguity by any measure of the word, as was pointed out to you at RS/N Risman is rather clear.
2. I've quoted Bulmer already. He mentions the settlement right before mentioning the "military command". Your selective quoting is indeed citation fraud.
3. Escudé is without a doubt referring to the 1833 expulsion incident, the year mentioned is 1833. I suggest you stop trying to remove this source based on your interpretation that it refers to 1831 since it is clearly WP:VANDALISM and could have you blocked. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I am never impressed by threats and I would strongly suggest you apologise for calling me a liar. I am not going to repeat myself but it seems clear to anyone familiar with Falklands history that Escude is referring to the Lexington raid, perhaps mistakenly. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As the written record shows you have intentionally lied attempting to mislead other editors. "Risman p.300 explicitly states that the garrison was expelled" <-- This is a lie.
I see you are now taking your WP:OR to a whole new level by directly correcting sources based on your own interpretation of them. Amazing. Gaba p (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I will once again politely suggest you withdraw the accusation of lying. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I will have to politely decline since you have in fact purposely lied. Once again I reiterate to you my proposal that you self revert your last edit given that you have breached the 3RR. Otherwise I will be forced to report you. I'll await your reply. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Then I feel that such a serious personal attack requires me to take action. For information of anyone reading this, I have replied [1]. Reverted by Gaba p [2], so he obviously read it.
And Gaba p, in the last 24 hrs [3],[4],[5],[6] thats 4 reverts and don't try to wikilawyer the 3rd revert as an "edit", that counts as a revert.
And myself, [7],[8] and [9] that is 3, I haven't broken 3RR. I have self-reverted on an earlier vandalism edit [10], see [11]. I would hope some one else reverts that but at least someone can't be confused by you attempting to portray as a 4th revert.
Do I take it, we're not allowed to use common sense when it appears to be such an obvious mistake? It must be obvious that Escude is mistaken to any reasonable person.
Of course if my edits are as you claim vandalism, you can revert them with impunity can't you? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I see you chose to revert an edit you called "vandalism" (which it is clearly not) instead of bringing back the Escudé source. Unbelievable. The only one who has reverted 4 times here is you Wee, I have reverted only three times as you have noted. For information I warned Wee about his breach of the 3RR in his talk page [12] which he immediately deleted.
I invite you to "take action" but beware the WP:BOOMERANG since you have beyond any doubt purposely lied trying to gain advantage in a discussion and broken the 3RR all in one day. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*Dispute resolution requests details the various different methods used in dispute resolutions.Moxy (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Please people, calm down...

  1. Reverts are reverts, it doesn't matter what you were reverting, under WP:3RR every revert counts: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period."
  2. Reisman (not Risman) says in page 300 that: "two British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison." Note that there's a difference between having orders to expel a garrison and expelling a garrison.
  3. @Apcbg: it does support the statement, only that further down the quote you are referring to. I urge you, I beg you to read WP:SECONDARY, since you are expressing an awfully wrong idea of how Wikipedia works regarding sourcing.
  4. A garrison can be referred to as settlers or inhabitants, there's nothing odd in that giving the context. Is everybody aware that Port Egmont didn't have any civilian population ever??? Are you aware that the Spanish settlement that lasted till 1811 didn't have any civilian either?? The forced dichotomy between military garrison and settlers is purely British POV.
  5. I was about to revert to last consensus, but I see that an admin has already protected the page. Congratulations, you've removed a reliable source. So much for WP:NPOV... --Langus (t) 01:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
1. It has been repeatedly demonstrated to you Langus, that this is not as you repeatedly allege a British POV. Point of fact, the case made by the British makes no reference to it whatsoever.
2. The comments referred to are made by neutral 3rd party academic sources. They are in response to Argentine assertions which note what is claimed is simply untrue.
3. I conclude you are practising WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You simply repeat the same thing, you make no attempt at discussion.
4. I see that you Langus state your intention to further revert, to a version of the article where Escude was being used as a cite for a statement he did not support. This has nothing to do with NPOV but an example of why this article is in the state it currently is. You and Gaba p tag teamed to edit war that into the article. You were about to do the same again knowing that I would be unable to revert. This is not about removing a reliable source, though it does make some serious factual errors and appears to be confusing two separate events, but removing a source that didn't support the claim.
5. The entire premise of your comments are simply a poor attempt at semantic argument. The Argentine claim is that ALL the settlers were expelled to be replaced by British settlers. This is untrue, that the garrison was expelled disputed by no one but the historical record shows the settlers remained and were encouraged to do so, they were not replaced at all, the British made no serious effort on colonisation for a decade.
6. At this point we have a mangled sentence edit waters into the article that is abusing the sources upon which they are based. They're being used out of context to attempt to buttress the Argentine claim. If you had any interest in NPOV, you would be discussing how to deal with presenting information in a neutral manner. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to Gaba p, you clearly did breach 3rr, I believe that to have been a deliberate ploy on your part given my earlier revert in an attempt to get me blocked for 3rr. You were invited to discuss it in talk, you chose not to and yes I will be taking further action about your blatant personal a attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee the only one who broke the 3RR here is you. It only takes a look at the article's history to see that and the fact that you chose to self rv after I adviced you to proves this. If you check this very talk page you'll notice that no one discussed the issue more than myself. Your attempt to imply that I refused to discuss the issue here is beyond ridiculous (almost as ridiculous as accusing me of having a "ploy" to get you blocked as if you were a poor new editor with no knowledge of WP rules). Anyway, do as you will. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Langus wrote: "I urge you, I beg you to read WP:SECONDARY, since you are expressing an awfully wrong idea of how Wikipedia works regarding sourcing."
Here is what WP:SECONDARY says on the secondary sources:
"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."
No source could be secondary without primary sources. And that applies as much to Escudé as to anyone else.
As WP:SECONDARY is a WP criterion, it is up to us to decide if a particular source meets the criterion or not. With no primary sources Escudé fails it, and so far I have seen no justification that Reisman or Bulmer might meet it in this particular respect (alleged eviction of all Argentine settlers) either. Apcbg (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
And you think that because a short article doesn't have inline references, it isn't based on the analysis of primary sources? Do you know who Carlos Escudé is?
Wee, Escudé supports the text. Gaba's translation is accurate:
The key word is pobladores. Great Britain took our inhabitants as prisoners and chartered them to Montevideo. Which is to say that Argentine inhabitants were expelled by the British.
So much for WP:NPOV... --Langus (t) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Langus, even the official Argentine Government claim makes no such assertion. Where is it claimed the British took prisoners and took them to Montevideo? It is so obviously a confusion with the USS Lexington raid of 1831 and you seriously expect me to believe you don't recognise this for yourself? Come on, you're destroying what little credibility you ever had. Really you want to claim this supports the text, are you really that desperate? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Langus, WP:SECONDARY requires primary sources and makes no special provisions for Escudé. (Yes I know who Escudé is; as a matter of fact I know him personally and highly respect him as a thinker but that's quite irrelevant for WP purposes isn't it?). No primary source — no secondary one. Apcbg (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg: are you claiming that since you can't see which primary sources the author used then the book/article is not suitable as a secondary source? You do understand that this line of thinking would pretty much deprive WP of sources right? Wee and Kahastok, do you think Apcbg is right in his claims? I'd be very interested in hearing what you think about his position.
Wee: you are right about the second sentence, it appears to refer to the 1831 event. But the first sentence refers to the 1833 event clearly and it states that "Argentina" was expelled. As I said we could quote this explicitly if the issue is (like with Bulmer) the interpretation of what they are meaning. Since Reisman mentions inhabitants verbatim, there's no argument here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Escude

As noted in the discussion above, the article by Escude does not support the original edit. It was removed on that basis. It has been edit warred back into the article by WP:TAG between Langus and Gaba p against the prevailing consensus in talk.

Langus has repeatedly claimed that the distinction between the garrison and the settlers is a "British POV". This is simply untrue, no part of the British case depends on making such a distinction. Conversely Argentina's justification for denying the right to self-determination is dependent on claiming the settlers were expelled and replaced by British settlers.

Neutral 3rd party academic sources note the Argentine claim to be untrue.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Argentina did not make the distinction.

It appears that the sole purpose of introducing the Escude quote is not as a cite but in order to introduce a political statement into the article and to repeat the same claim multiple times. It is certainly not adding anything of value to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

1- Escudé does support the statement.
2- It was removed edit-warring and following no consensus of any kind.
3- Argentina makes no distinction between "settlers", "garrison", "authorities", "inhabitants", etc. This is an artificial distinction created by you.
4- "Neutral 3rd party academic sources note the Argentine claim to be untrue". <-- Untrue.
I note you have no real reason as to why we should not include Escudé in the article. It's a renowned historian and the sentence quoted is beyond clear. As I see it, Langus' re-phrase of the sentence was forced by you and Kahastok claiming there is a difference between "Argentinian inhabitants" and "Argentina".
Wee: either explicitly mention why Escudé is not a proper source or explain what you mean by the (second) tag you added to the section. What exactly is being cherry picked here? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
As I pointed out, its totally irrelevant in the context of self-determination, which is the focus of the article. For all the reams of argumentative text, it is simply irrelevant and that is why it was removed.
I have provided plenty of sources to demonstrate this is a position taken by neutral academic sources. Your edit is simply there to obscure the fact. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is "irrelevant"? The statement sourced to Escudé? The mention of any source but the ones you approve personally? Please be more specific.
As I and Langus have pointed out repeatedly Argentina makes no distinction between its inhabitants, the garrison, or the authorities. You are trying to artificially force this distinction into the section and it is the reason that the sentence mentioning other historians was added. I would have no problem removing everything starting from "Historian Mary Cawkell considers that ...". Your inclusion of Cawkell, designed as an attempt to "rebut" the Argentinian claim, is what triggered the inclusion of other historians to add some balance to the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee, after your reading your comment in the section above and thinking about it, it does seem that Escudé is mixing up the Lexington's attack with the Clio incident. However, it struck me clear: I've never payed close attention to the exact words, but there has to be many reliable, secondary sources stating that Argentina as a country was expelled by the British. In that I agree with Kahastok: authorities being expelled result in authors expressing that X country was expelled. It is not a political statement but an interpretation of facts. Also, you don't get to decide which sources are "neutral" and which aren't. This is a very polarized subject, I remind you.

The question is: are you prepared to accept that some secondary sources see it that way? Are you willing to let every significant viewpoint into the article? --Langus (t) 03:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Langus,
Again and again and again, ad infinitum I have simply pointed out the historical record and the opinion of neutral 3rd party academic sources that the settlers were not expelled. This is not my opinion. You appear to acknowledge this to be the case as you now seek to move the goalposts referring to "Argentina as a country". So I question why you are still misrepresenting my comments.
Again and again and again, ad infinitum I have acknowledged the British expelled the Argentine garrison or authorities. I do not, never have and never will try to hide this from any article on wikipedia if it is relevant. My proposed edit to this article acknowledged the Argentine garrison was expelled by the British. So I question why you are still misrepresenting my comments.
Argentina claims that the Argentine settlers were expelled to be replaced by British settlers. On this basis it denies the right to self-determination to the current population on the basis of "territorial integrity". Argentina's arguments and the comments of neutral observers are relevant in that respect.
If you can demonstrate that Argentina's claim of territorial integrity also refers solely to the expulsion of the garrison. Then fine, you could also add what neutral observers have so say on the relevance of that claim. You've never actually proposed that, you've simply abused sources to try and infer there is some debate about the historical record when in fact there is none.
My edit
Can you also demonstrate a link between the expulsion of the garrison and the territorial integrity argument. IF you can then we can move forward. Wee Curry Monster talk 04:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Wee, there seems to be some misunderstanding here of territorial integrity and its relevance to territorial disputes, to disputed territory's population, and to self-determination in general. Territorial integrity is not a valid argument in territorial disputes because each claimant pleades territorial integrity but that's merely another way of saying one has a claim. Territorial integrity refers to possession and sovereignty not to population if any. As for self-determination, that surely has priority over territorial integrity because the option of independence necessarily disrupts territorial integrity; were territorial integrity to have priority there would have been no self-determination at all. In this case the Argentine claim in 1820 and later (unsuccessful) attempt to establish effective control over the Falklands was a failed attempt to violate British territorial integrity. Nowadays, the Islanders' exercise of self-determination has priority over the integrity of British sovereignty, as the latter would be violated if the Falklands decide to become independent. Apcbg (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that we're going into all this, because the sources don't say what they're claimed to say, should be telling us something.

The key point with respect to self-determination is about the local population. Everyone agrees that the garrison was expelled, but I'm sure we can come up with plenty of examples of countries (meaning their authorities rather than their local population) that have been expelled from a territory over the course of the last 180 yaers, and the right to self-determination is now accepted. The rule Argentina claims is based on the principle that you're not allowed to rig self-determination by replacing a local population with an implanted one. This is an issue in Western Sahara, where the alleged implantation has occurred over the last forty years, and I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention that situation. Of course, whether it can be held to apply at a remove of 180 years is disputed.

I support Curry Monster's proposal as an improvement to the status quo. Kahastok talk 22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WCM's proposal is not acceptable, as it depicts as if only the Argentine government supports the idea that the population was expelled, when we already have academic sources also stating this.
It seems you're rising questions referring to the consequences of what happened in 1833. "Demonstrate a link between the expulsion of the garrison and the territorial integrity argument", "the key point with respect to self-determination"... What we are dealing with is what do academic sources say about the events of January 1833? We don't have to stop to analyze how these statements impact on the whole sovereignty question... In fact we must not do that. --Langus (t) 04:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You don't have academic sources also stating this, thats the point. The historical record is in agreeemnt. What we see is you and Gaba p taking quotes out of context to imply it, when they don't support that. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, the sources support the expulsion of the garrison NOT the population. Even the Argentine Government claim is demonstrably self-contradictory in this respect. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
To add, what we are doing is reflecting what sources say, not what you want them to say. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
First I note this is not a WP:FORUM. It is not our position to investigate historical records and come up with our own conclusions. Wee has been told this more times than I can count...
"You don't have academic sources also stating this". Reisman says verbatim "Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands", Bulmer says "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833" and Escudé "Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right.". It simply can't be made any more clear, all three sources support the claim that either "Argetina" or its "inhabitants" or its "settler and military command" were expelled.
The Argentine claim is self contradictory to you Wee, because you have already made up your mind regarding this issue. Your pro-British position should not get in the way of your editing WP, you know this.
I would have no problem in quoting the sources verbatim if you wish to reflect exactly what the sources say Wee, would that be ok to you?
Following Wee's proposed edit (which I do not agree with) where he proposed no compromise at all, here's my proposed edit:
Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't a forum, what does however seem clear is you're simply filibustering.

This has nothing to do with personal opinion, sources have been provided to show this is the opinion of neutral sources. You're taking the remark of one author out of context to infer a conclusion the author never made. Whether Argentina as a country was expelled has not been shown to be relevant to self-determination the focus of this article.

You've forced an edit into the article by edit warring, you're filibustering to keep it there. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No Wee, the one being disruptive here is clearly you (with the aid of the usual pals). You added the tags to the article because you won't accept any other source but the ones you deem as neutral in the section.
Escudé, Bulmer and Reisman are relevant to the section/article in the same amount Cawkell and Harper are. As I said (what, three times already?) I'd have no problem in either a- removing all mention of all these historians, or b- quote verbatim what each of them say about the issue. Note I am willing to compromise proposing other options. You on the other hand, are not.
The mess that is the Falklands section of this article is solely on your hands. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No, you are taking the remarks of authors out of context to make a claim not supported by the work of that author. Can you point to a paper, where the author has evaluated the historical record and concluded there was an expulsion of the population? The answer is no you can't, because it didn't happen, which is why the neutral academic sources that have done so make the polar opposite conclusion. You simply selectively quote papers that take the Argentine claim but do not examine it. You're not willing to compromise, you insist on edit warring an edit into the article material that doesn't belong there. Your edit is deliberatley misleading and untruthful. You are welcome to have the WP:LASTWORD as you usually insist on doing so but the continued personal attacks, allegations of misconduct, constantly repeating the same accusations, constantly repeating the same argument, ignoring the comments of other and reams of tendentious nonsense are clear evidence of WP:FILIBUSTERS. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Wee, your behavior is the definition of WP:FILIBUSTER. The one continually making personal attacks is you ("disruptive editing", "POV editing", "filibuster", etc..) the one repeating the same (false) argument is also you ("quotes out of context") and the one ignoring the comments is also you (I proposed a compromise two times already). So here's the compromise again: a- we either remove all mentions of historians from the section (since it it not neutral to just mention the ones you cherry picked) or b- we quote verbatim what each of them said about the issue. Tell me again your proposal? Was it to only remove the historians you don't like? Yes, that's a great compromise.
Once again: you are the one who trashed the section with the addition of the tags after three editors agreed on a state for it and you couldn't get your way. The state of the section is 100% your responsibility. Oh, and thanks for letting me have the last word, what a gentleman's gesture. Regards Gaba p (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Falklands - Harper mention

I have two issues with the last sentence attributed to Harper: "Harper claims that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841."

  1. In what part of page 91 does Harper say that? I could not find such a statement in the sourced book.
  2. Assuming point 1- checks out, what is the relevance of this sentence in this section?

At this point I'd propose that this sentence be removed. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

More disruptive behaviour, the statement was originally sourced to Cawkell, you butchered the article separating source from statement and incorrectly attributed it to Harper. You've then edit warred to keep it in its current state and are now trying to remove a statement to leave only Argentine claims that are untrue. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Can't we correct the reference? (and tone down the conversation) --Langus (t) 16:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, in the normal course of events correcting the reference would be a simple thing to do. But let's put the record straight you and Gaba p worked to WP:TAG that edit into the article. I spent some time yesterday expanding the section to deal with POV issues and guess which two editors just reverted back to the biased version of text? It was made plain it was a work in progress and you just wiped it out. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Uh?? Wee you are not making any sense at all.
  1. "you and Gaba p worked to WP:TAG that edit into the article", what does that even mean?? What edit are you talking about?? The Harper mention was there long before this dispute began and the source for it was added by another editor as I proved already. You can't not realize that what you say makes no sense.
  2. Your humongous version of the section was reverted only by Langus, not by me (although I would have done the same thing) Once again you state something that is just not true ("guess which two editors just reverted back"). Your section was so wrong on so many levels it's not even worth a mention. If you want to make such an extensive edit to the section, work it in a sandbox first so we can see it before. If there's consensus then it can be added.
Meanwhile, the source for that statement is still wrong unless some one can prove it does actually support the statement. If this does not move forward, the sentence will have to be removed. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


Time for a reality check for Wee Curry Monster.

  • The statement was originally unsourced as the first edit I made to this article proves [13].
  • Later on it was me who tagged the statement with a cn tag (which you of course edit-warred to remove instead of providing a source) and it was editor Moxy who sourced the statement to Harper [14] (in addition, that diff proves that it was this same editor who introduced the López source, something you like to continually attribute to me, a source we found later on to be unreliable)
  • After that you brought in the Cawkell source to reference a whole different statement [15].
  • From that point on the statement has always been sourced to Harper, apparently no one bothered to check until I did now.

Note how the links presented prove that Wee purposely lied in his comment above, specifically: "the statement was originally sourced to Cawkell, you butchered the article separating source from statement and incorrectly attributed it to Harper". This is not the first time I've caught you doing this Wee, in fact it's the second time in two weeks. Anything to say about your behavior?. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I do think that so frequently accusing people of lying really doesn't help your case. It is uncivil and an accusation of bad faith, two basic failures of behavioural policy that are only going to make it less likely for you to get consensus, which is supposed to be what you are trying to achieve here.
Even if he says something - or anyone else says something - that turns out to be inaccurate, that doesn't mean that they are lying. It may mean that they have made a mistake. It may mean that they look at something and see something different from you. It may mean that you need to relook at what you think and try and understand where they are coming from. Trying to do any of these, if handled civilly, can help in attaining consensus. But just knee-jerk accusing people of lying will have the opposite affect. Kahastok talk 20:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I would have no problem in assuming good faith if it weren't for the fact that Wee's "mistake" is used with the sole purpose of attacking me. I find it odd that you would choose to comment on my setting the record straight but not on Wee's accusations of "more disruptive editing", "edit warring", "butchering an article" and introducing "untrue" statements all based on an untrue accusation.
Wee did not make a "mistake", just like you did not make a "mistake" when you accused me of "proposing" something which I did not a couple of days ago (something you never apologized for). This is not a "knee-jerk" reaction since this is becoming a habit for Wee and if you wish I can present here more examples of this same attitude by him, all of them aimed directly at me or while discussing an issue with me. Should I do so or can we just wait for Wee's apology and move on with the proposed edit? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I note with disappointment your decision to repeat the incivility, including inaccurate accusations against me. It is disappointing that you seem unwilling to engage constructively with the consensus-building process, and you can be sure that I and others will take this into account when you are involved in any future discussion.
Would someone please explain, per WP:BRD, why Curry Monster's recent edits were reverted? Kahastok talk 12:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok, your last comment is rather patronizing and it didn't address Gaba's point: why do you choose to comment on Gaba's accusations and not on WCM's accusations?
Personally, I think it takes two for tango, and when I ask to tone down the conversation I'm speaking to everyone. For example, accusations of WP:TAGTEAM and WP:VANDAL have been repeatedly thrown by both sides. Editors in this conversation are experienced enough to know what a tag team is and what a vandal is. By repeating these accusations you only make a fool of yourselves (unless you have real proof that teaming coordination is underway --vandalism is out of question). --Langus (t) 18:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Langus, like you did with the banned user User:Alex79818, rather than discussing an edit and my objections in a reasonable manner, you acted in concert with User:Gaba p to force a non-neutral edit into the article. This is WP:TAG. You started an RFC trying to have me labelled as disruptive, which ended up commenting on your disruptive behaviour. Here you've been invited to comment on why you removed a work in progress wholesale, whilst at the same time accusing me of POV editing thereby raising the temperature of the discussion unnecessarily. You then make a pretence of acting peacemaker to launch further personal attacks. No it doesn't take two editors to be disruptive but they're more effective at being disruptive when they act in concert and you're clearly backing Gaba p's disruptive editing. I note you have chosen not to condemn Gaba p's repeated accusation of lying.
Please comment on why you removed my edit please. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Gaba p

[16] Please refer to diff, where I reverted Gaba p for screwing with a sentence, mangling the English grammar and sentence structure, whilst simultaneously attributing a claim to the wrong source. Although he has attempted to give credence to his claim, the record in history shows my comment to be correct. I consider the personal attacks to be more evidence of filibustering. I request that Gaba could restrict his personal attacks to a separate section. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So no apologies for lying eh Wee?, what a shocker. Your accusations are quite laughable but I expected this. Anyway, enough time I wasted already demonstrating your constant lies so I think I just better carry on. For the record since you started a section just for me, I'll open a section just for you. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Lies by Wee Curry Monster

Please any editor read the following points which prove how Wee purposely lied by stating that "the statement was originally sourced to Cawkell, you butchered the article separating source from statement and incorrectly attributed it to Harper".

  • The statement was originally unsourced as the first edit I made to this article proves [17].
  • Later on it was me who tagged the statement with a cn tag (which you of course edit-warred to remove instead of providing a source) and it was editor Moxy who sourced the statement to Harper [18] (in addition, that diff proves that it was this same editor who introduced the López source, something you like to continually attribute to me, a source we found later on to be unreliable)
  • After that you brought in the Cawkell source to reference a whole different statement [19].
  • From that point on the statement has always been sourced to Harper, apparently no one bothered to check until I did now.

Please Wee, I'd appreciate if from now on you'll just restrict your lies to this section. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Partisan source

I see that further disruption is being made by the reference to the President of Argentina's advert placed in British papers. As a partisan source that is little more than propaganda, it clearly is inappropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

When you added the tag[20] the source was a report that an advert had been placed, not the advert itself, and the content of the advert was only portrayed as a significant point of view, which seems appropriate, although whether it's the government's official stance (as was stated in the article) or just the president's isn't clear from the letter. Peter James (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

I have removed the section on Falkland Islands as its clear there is some serious problems that should not be solved by a long standing edit war. The text meaning CANT be changing daily.Moxy (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I refused to edit war and added tags to draw attention to the issues being raised. You might also note that any attempt to discuss the article is met with constant personal attacks. If you can suggest how to have a reasonable collaboration in the circumstances where one editor is being deliberately disruptive and provocative then I'm all ears. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Just crazy - everyday a new slant to the section - I would suggest that "AFTER" an agreement on the lead text at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute - then that lead could be place here (with a nice link to the main page). We have no need to have an ongoing debate affect many articles at the same time Get a consensus on a lead at the parent article then as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia insert that info here. The section here does not need to go into details because there is a parent article on the topic ... all we need to do is guide our readers to the main parent page - thus all that is needed here is a short summary that explains there is a debate on the subject - but no need to go into details about that debate here. Moxy (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(Not going to mention Wee's personal attacks any more)

I agree with Moxy, the section needs to be as concise as possible and not get into long and debatable details. This is what I propose:


Self-determination is referred to in the Falkland Islands Constitution[1] and is a factor in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The British Government considers that, since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.[2] Argentina argues self-determination is not applicable in this case, asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled".[3] This refers to the reassertion of British sovereignty over the islands in the year 1833 during which Argentina states the Argentines on the islands were expelled by the British Royal Navy.[4][5]


Feel free to make a new proposal or to edit this one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Full content proposal:


I came up with the above content suggestion, which details all of the relevant material.

User:Gaba p's content proposal is not acceptable for what it leaves out by omission. He is suppressing any mention that the Argentine claims do not accord with the historical record and any attempt to address this has been obscured by adding selected quotes from sources taken out of context to infer there is a dichotomy in the historical record when none exists. He and Langus have also forced irrelevant content into the article.

Focusing on content.

1. Britain's position is fairly straight forward.
2. Argentina's position relies in part upon its allegation that the British expelled the pre-existing population to be replaced by British settlers.

2a. Contemporary historical record of the eye witness reports from both sides confirms this did not happen
2b. Historians are in agreement that this did not happen.
2c. Whilst all sources agree the garrison was expelled, the settlers were not.

3. Argentina's position also relies on the claim that the British did not allow Argentines to settle.

3a. Brisbane and other parts of Vernet's leadership returned in March 1833.
3b. At one time Vernet was proposed as a British governor for the islands
3c. Lafone employed a large number of South American gauchos in the islands
3d. Population records show a number of Argentines living in the islands
3e. There was no restriction on Argentines in the islands till after the 1982 Falklands War
3f. I do note however that in the later 1830s Vernet was not allowed to return.

4. Argentina's position is self-contradictory.

4a. It claims there was an expulsion
4b. Also refers to actions taken by settlers after the supposed expulsion

In regards to 2b it is alleged Risman, Escude and Bulmer cast doubt upon this. They don't. Escude makes no relevant comment, Bulmer refers to the garrison and Risman simply repeats an Argentine claim so its a case of repeating the same claim twice.

Its also repeatedly alleged that the distinction betwen the garrison and the population is a "British POV", when it isn't. No part of the British position dependes upon that, its just a case that neutral academics comment on it, its often referred to in the literature.

Finally as I note in the end, these contradictions mean there is no clear consensus in the literature which of the competing positions has greater weight.

I did produce a faily short and succinct summary of the key points but unfortunately this isn't liked as it introduces material noting the contradiction in the Argentine claims. Gaba p and Langus simply wish to have the comments of neutral 3rd party academic sources expunged because as they see it, its casts doubt on Argentine claims. And for all the posturing about personal attacks both make, their responses has been nothing but. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


My summary text proposal is:


I did suggest replacing the reference from Cawkell to Gustafson, simply because the latter has received wide praise for its neutral and even handed approach to the subject. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposed text seems unduly preoccupied with a third party’s territorial claim which is of secondary relevance in the established international practice, as demonstrated in the cases of Belize or Guyana. I would rather suggest the following summary instead:
The right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders is recognized by their administering power Britain (citation) and enshrined in the Falklands Constitution (citation). A forthcoming referendum on the political status of the Falkland Islands will be held in March 2013 (citation). Argentina testifies against the Falklander right to self determination as a part of its sovereignty claim of the islands (citation). Apcbg (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I can happily support that suggestion, reflecting as it does my original suggestion to trim the section commensurate with appropriate coverage of the subject in relation to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Mention why self-determination is opposed, as that's still relevant to the topic; I agree there's no need for a full history of the territorial dispute on this page. Peter James (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, done. Apcbg (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I've amended Apcbg's proposal:
The right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders is recognized by their administering power Britain (citation) and enshrined in the Falklands Constitution (citation). Argentina states the islanders posses no right to self determination as a part of its sovereignty claim of the islands (citation), asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled".[21]
  • Referendum mention removed as per WP:NOTNEWS.
  • Correct position of Argentina.
I support Apcbg's version with my edits. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't agree with Gaba p's suggestion for the reasons repeatedly outlined, you cannot per WP:NPOV append such a reason without noting such a claim is considered untrue by neutral academic sources. Apcbg's proposed edit like previous suggestions, including my own, side-stepped this by not explicitly mentioning a false claim. Apcbg's text is a good neutral summary, the following suggestion is partisan. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It would only be presented as Argentina's views on whether self-determination is valid for the Falklands, we don't have to explain how it's considered untrue by some sources everywhere it's mentioned. Peter James (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
With respect I do not believe that complies with WP:NPOV, since it gives a singular viewpoint and does not reflect the major viewpoints in the literature. Anyway as I've frequently pointed out, we should not be giving either POV but rather an edit that reflects the view taken of each by neutral 3rd party academics sources. You would be presenting Argentina's view in the wikipedia voice and that is unacceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It would actually be presenting it as the view of only one country's government. Of the academic sources, those I could check online don't appear to explicitly support or contradict it (I'm not sure about Cawkell's book, as only short snippets are available; a quote from the relevant part would be needed). If there are other views that should be given they are those on the islands' self-determination, not details of the history. If the dispute over self-determination is to be explained, maybe replacing the part from "Argentina states" to "asserting", with something like "Sovereignty is disputed by Argentina, which asserts that". Peter James (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You can try that as a suggestion, however, those pushing for this to be included have argued ad nauseum, this is WP:WEASEL wording to cast doubt on Argentine claims. I have already tried that route. I've dumped details of sources below for you to refer to. As I note below this isn't just Cawkell's book, that was simply a convenient example. You might also note the Argentine claim is self-contradictory as I refer to above. It claims the settlers were expelled but the self-same document refers to settlers remaining in the islands. Again, I would reiterate the best method for NPOV is to refer to how neutral 3rd party academics sources consider the two positions not to try and present the positions themselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I doubt if the suggested summary expansion is appropriate; presenting the arguments used by various parties entails a level of detail suitable for an article on the Falklander self determination, or on the Argentine claim — which this article is not. Apcbg (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It just seemed appropriate to include the reason for the dispute, without going off topic or into excessive detail about how Argentina's currently claimed reason is inaccurate or at least misleading. My suggested change to Gaba p's version wasn't intended to cast doubt, but to move the emphasis from "Argentina" to "dispute". I'd support the summary you suggested here, which seems neutral and unlikely to be misunderstood (but maybe incomplete, and the later addition is unclear). Peter James (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Peter please don't see my comment as criticism of your suggested edit, I certainly don't disagree with you, I was merely commenting I'd made a similar suggestion and the reasons it was shot down by others. My point is that we shouldn't make the Argentine claim in a wikipedia voice that makes it authorative when there is commentary in the literature that casts doubt upon it. I also support the edit you suggest. May I thank you for commenting as I'm well aware that it can be intimidating to comment here at present. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If the later addition appears unclear, then I am removing it to restore the original summary. The question asked was, “why self-determination is opposed.” And the answer is, it is opposed because a possible recognition by Argentina would mean dropping the Argentine sovereignty claim which Argentina is not prepared to do at this stage. Apcbg (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I fail to understand how can the mention of the Argentinian claim be confused with an "authoritative" statement "in a wikipedia voice". Let me just post my proposed edit one more time so that it can be seen that it clearly says "Argentina states" and the statement is even around quotes. How can this be confused with "the truth is" in a wikipedia voice?

The right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders is recognized by their administering power Britain (citation) and enshrined in the Falklands Constitution (citation). Argentina states the islanders posses no right to self determination as a part of its sovereignty claim of the islands (citation), asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled".[22]

The problem I have with Apcbg's proposed edit is that it gives weight to the opinion of the islanders precisely on an article about self-determination. Since Argentina contests that the islanders have this right, expressing their view as if it was a valid third party in the discussion is already to accept that they have such a right. My edit mentions the position of both the UK and Argentina without going into extensive detail. The position of the islanders is already mentioned in the articles Falklands Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute or even better Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013. Any of them can be added to the top of the section so the reader can seek for more information if they wish to. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are confusing two related but essentially different issues and their respectively different parties. One is the sovereignty dispute where you may argue if the Falklanders are a third party or not, given that sovereignty is exercized by Britain. Another is self determination, the transfer (wholy or partly) of that exercized sovereignty from the administering power Britain to the administered people the Falkland Islanders, which has two parties and has been existing since these two parties agreed on it. Argentina may or may not have her position on that transfer but that does not make her a third party to the self determination process. Apcbg (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"The right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders is recognized by their administering power Britain" --> This phrase can't be put like this. The "right" to self-determination is contested, it can't be presented as something that exists. If we attribute it to the UK that would be ok though, e.g.: Britain "recognizes the right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders". Or else we should avoid, as Wikipedia, to refer to it as a "right" that is "recognized". --Langus (t) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmm hadn't noticed that. How about:
Britain "recognizes the right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders" (citation). The British position as stated by its prime minister David Cameron is that "The future of the Falkland Islands should be determined by the Falkland islanders themselves"[21]. Argentina states the islanders posses no right to self determination as a part of its sovereignty claim of the islands (citation), asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled".[23]
Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The British and the Falkland Islands Government both state that self-determination is a relevant part of the dispute citing the UN Charter. Its not a part of the Argentine position, so the need to mention it in a summary is not immediately apparent. Both Gaba p and Langus-TxT argue that we should present the Argentine denial of such a right, that has been agreed as a suitable compromise. They also argue we should present the Argentine case in an authorative voice, using the Argentine Government as a source, not noting that the claims made are dismissed by neutral third party academic sources. This is unacceptable per WP:NPOV as it fails WP:WEIGHT by not presenting all significant views in the literature. We should be not presenting the Argentine case in the wikipedia voice, we should be guided as to how that is viewed by neutral 3rd party academic sources - note I am happy for this to be used to cite the British case and to use such sources to describe the British position - again I note a willingness to compromise. I am also prepared to accept the compromise suggested by Apcbg and Peter James of simply noting Argentine opposition - again I note a willingness to compromise.
I have previously tried WP:DRN and WP:NPOVN in attempts to find a point at which either Gaba or Langus would be prepared to compromise. On each occasion, when the justification they advance for this position has been demonstrated to be counter to wikipedia's policies they've switched to a new argument for the same content. At this point I simply ask are they ever prepared to compromise. As a side issue I have restored a section on sources provided for independent editors to peruse. Please don't remove it again.
As I note above Argentina claims the settlers were expelled, in the very same document it refers to the settlers left behind. I invite both to comment on this glaring contradiction,. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Wee, as you mentioned Jean Simón, one cannot help pitying thе poor guy, an Argentine settler who, despite allegedly having been expelled by the Brits, nevertheless managed to get murdered on the Falklands (together with other allegedly expelled Argentine settlers) by the (also expelled) Gaucho Rivero gang in an alleged act of uprising against British colonial oppression personified by William Dickson (yet another allegedly expelled Argentine settler) :-). Apcbg (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Not forgetting Matthew Brisbane, another Argentine settler, who returned to the Falklands after the Brits had allegedly expelled the Argentines and were allegedly preventing any Argentine settler going there and also managed to be murdered by the (also expelled) Gaucho Rivero gang in alleged act of uprising against British colonial oppression some 6 months before a British presence was established. But don't let the facts get in the way dear boy ;-). Wee Curry Monster talk 10:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, as long as we have that supported by 'secondary' primary sources like Escudé :-). Apcbg (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg & Wee, I suggest you use Skype or some other IM software. Apcbg, Escudé is a secondary source and you're only making a fool of yourself by denying it (you can discretely ask WCM on Skype if you don't believe me). Now, to the point: "not noting that the claims made are dismissed by neutral third party academic sources" -- how about you not noting that other neutral third party academic sources back those claims by the letter, Wee Curry Monster? --Langus (t) 22:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Langus, WP verifiability doesn't work by way of private communication or by me believing you or Wee. If anyone is able to demonstrate compliance with WP:SECONDARY that should be done here for everyone to see. Which has been done neither for Escudé nor for the other two sources. The general reputation of the source's author is not nearly enough as one and the same publication could be a reliable secondary source on one issue, a reliable primary source on another, and not a reliable source at all on third and fourth issues. Apcbg (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee could I ask you to please comment on Apcbg's reasoning that we somehow need to "demonstrate" the use of secondary sources for every source we use? Apcbg, would you care to open a ticket at RS/N and ask your question there? That way we could move forward with the actual writing of the section. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no question to ask here. One need not demonstrate that a particular source satisfies the WP:SECONDARY definition of reliable secondary source every time one uses such a source. However, one should be able to do so if requested to. If not — WP needs no unreliable sources. Apcbg (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Langus, have you been discussing your edits on wikipedia on Skype?
Btw I notice neither of you addresses the point that what Argentina claims is self-contradictory. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Wee I note that you refused to comment on Apcbg's position. Apcbg: does Wee's silence about your position not tell you anything?
Wee, do you have a source for your claim that Argentina's position is "self-contradictory"? Or is this just some of your usual WP:OR and WP:SYN? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
No Wee, I don't do that and I expect neither of you fall for that. But you two were just chatting as if we were in a WP:FORUM, even taunting Argentine editors. I tried to be humorous about it, but you are beyond me.
Apcgb, you're wrong. Open a ticket at RSN if you wish so. Personally, I don't want to disturb more editors with a trivial question, so I'll leave it in your hands.
Argentine claims are contradictory if you focus on the right tidbits of information. You're missing the whole picture, something that some secondary sources also do on purpose, and others don't.
Oh BTW, I've got Fitte and your supposed citation in regard to the Convention of Settlement is not there. --Langus (t) 19:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies with the editors who claim that those are reliable secondary sources yet repeatedly fail to demonstrate compliance with WP:SECONDARY when asked to do so, ‘trivial’ as that might be. Apcbg (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Peter James on sources

I'm adding a detailed list of what sources say, I don't expect you to read it all, so have added it as a separate section.

Contemporary accounts

Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Onslow's orders were clear


Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.



Pinedo (An Argentine source) corroborates this:


I ask you to note that the two eye witness accounts corroborate.

The Complete Works of Charles Darwin online includes the diaries of both Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy. HMS Beagle visited the settlement in March 1833 and again the following year. In March 1833, Fitzroy documents his meeting with Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, who had returned to take charge of Vernet's business interests. Fitzroy also documents his efforts to persuade the settlers to continue in the islands. Both Darwin and Fitzroy document their meetings with the settlers supposedly expelled 3 months earlier.

Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement.

There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives.

Neutral

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.


I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.


Empahsis added

Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.


Emphasis added

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.



Gunter (1979)


Metford (1968)


Royle (1985)


Dickinson (1994)


Goebel (1927)


Cawkell (1983)


Destefani (1982)

David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Source for the British Government position

[22] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

[23] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands


Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.

Not to mention the schizophrenic nature of what Argentina claims.

[24]



On the one hand its claiming the settlers were expelled, in the same document it refers to the settlers left in the islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008". Legislation.gov.uk. 2011-07-04. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  2. ^ ""Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day — MercoPress". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  3. ^ UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047
  4. ^ "David Cameron must return Falklands to Argentina, Cristina Kirchner demands in open letter". The Telegraph. 02 Jan 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9776580/David-Cameron-must-return-Falklands-to-Argentina-Cristina-Kirchner-demands-in-open-letter.html" ignored (help)
  5. ^ [25] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  6. ^ "The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008". Legislation.gov.uk. 2011-07-04. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  7. ^ a b Victor Bulmer-Thomas (17 August 1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–. ISBN 978-0-521-37205-3. Retrieved 11 September 2012.
  8. ^ "Falklands' 1986 referendum showed 94.5% favoured British sovereignty". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
  9. ^ ""Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day — MercoPress". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  10. ^ [26] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  11. ^ "The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008". Legislation.gov.uk. 2011-07-04. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  12. ^ "Falklands' 1986 referendum showed 94.5% favoured British sovereignty". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
  13. ^ ""Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day — MercoPress". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  14. ^ UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047
  15. ^ [27] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  16. ^ Angel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3.
  17. ^ Mary Cawkell (January 1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  18. ^ [28] The Telegraph, Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina, Jasper Copping, 27 Feb 2010 There was no such penal colony. Onslow told the Argentine garrison to leave but asked civilians to stay, as most of them did.
  19. ^ Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the Sout Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. pp. 91–94. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  20. ^ Marjory Harper (1998). Emigration from Scotland Between the Wars: Opportunity Or Exile?. Manchester University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-7190-4927-9.
  21. ^ UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047
  22. ^ UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047
  23. ^ UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047
  24. ^ http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf Pepper and Pascoe's document has a convenient reference.
  25. ^ http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf Pepper and Pascoe's document has a convenient reference.
  26. ^ http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf Pepper and Pascoe's document has a convenient reference.
  27. ^ http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf Pepper and Pascoe's document has a convenient reference.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-determination/Archive_2&oldid=1131381614"