Jump to content

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

RFC International Position

It seems clear from the RFC and subsequent comments that the section entitled International Position should be removed in its current form. What replaces it seems open to debate. However, it seems clear to me that the filibustering conduct is going to continue to prevent the article moving forward in a meaningful direction. I am therefore proposing to remove it per the RFC outcome, whilst an edit is composed in the talk pages.

As I see it, it removes the motive to filibuster the discussion and hopefully a genuine consensus will result. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee this is like the fifth time you threaten with removing the section. As was told to you already you have absolutely no consensus to remove the section. Doing so will only lead to an edit-war and escalate the issue much further. You are welcome to give your input on how the section could be improved in the section above. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Already removed after giving plenty of notice of my intention to do so. There will only be an edit war if you edit war, rather than discussing the matter in an adult manner. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

UNBELIEVABLE you went ahead and removed the section unilaterally without waiting from comments from other editors. I'm warning you Wee, abstain from any more disruptive and borderline vandalism editing. Gaba p (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You were specifically counselled at WP:ANI for using threats of reporting editors as intimidation, a number of editors have already agreed this should be removed, and I'm still quite happy to work on an edit for replacement content. I have given more than adequate notice of my intention to do this and you deliberately disrupted my attempt to use WP:DR to get an external opinion at WP:NPOVN. You are still more than welcome to discuss such an edit in a civil manner, however, if you continue to be confrontational, aggressive and disruptive your comments will rightly be ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Blimey

This is exciting stuff!!!

I note some compromises above which all seem to have failed; can I suggest (and it is only a suggestion, I have no personal interest in the issue) just limiting the section to a bald statement of facts, i.e., as the opening line states:

The position of third countries or international organizations on the sovereignty of the islands is varied. Whilst some countries consider it a bilateral issue, others maintain neutrality but call on both countries to resolve the dispute through peaceful means or to begin dialogue. Some countries support outright either the British or the Argentine claim.

Fundamentally, is it really necessary to list countries which have expressed an opinion? It's likely to be incomplete. The 'Foreign Depts' of most Governments doubtless have a view on the matter, however strongly / frequently (or otherwise) stated.

See what I mean...? Basket Feudalist 17:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that and agree with you 100%. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that as long as there are references for this sort of summary. I think the views of specific countries might be useful as well if those views are somehow notable (like a surprising change in position that receives significant media coverage). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Just that opening sentenced was very well referenced on its own: ref>BBC article EU rejects Falklands claim fears on 3 May 2005, retrieved on 13 February 2012</ref>[1][2] Basket Feudalist 18:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Where Irondome has a little rant

I thought we had consensus. WE CAN USE THAT geoploticalmonitor material! Its a def to pass RS. I thought we had consensus here I really did. Now lets just chill and START AGAIN. Sorry im simultaneously having issues at home here so excuse my strident tone. Gaba you indicated you were content with it, and so did Wee. Lets step back, and start using that source constructively to cut and restructure the section. Please? Gaba alist of countries is unacceoptable as a section. Its irrelevant. Now I have found you a basis in material to make the section actually of use. I did not mean it to be used as a weapon for you to prove some fetish here. Irondome (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be quite happy with that approach, cut the section and re-structure with the source you found, its what is proposed above. I agree 100% with the approach to sourcing, establishing weight and approach to content. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. can we just get some consensus here on one simple question.
  • The new material is used as a source base for a nice, neutral short concise section. Yes or no? I dont give a flying F what antigua or the solomon islands or whoevers pompous little declarations say. I would just, if i was a new reader, want to see a concise section on the major political events post 82 and the current increase in tensions, with a brief overview of why its happening WHICH THAT MATERIAL PROVIDES. Other nations views can be mentioned within the context of that, not as an end in itself.Irondome (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You know. I logged off late in the early hours having worked up a bloody good argument over at RS plus looking for good new stuff (theres lots of similar stuff out there, i betcha. That new material took me less than 5 mins to find) with the niave impression this was on the way to being sorted. I log back on and chaos. Gaba, I thought you agreed with my proposal to rework and use the geo material as a substitute for the contentious secondary media stuff. What has changed in 15 hours. Its all this moving the goalposts thats crippling this.Irondome (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
"You know" was just a blurt of sheer frustration Wee. Rant over. Irondome (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Nae worries, you sassenachs get all excited sometimes. Especially when we trounce yae at fitbae. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Im alright now. Normal service resumed. That was a low blow Wee lol. First smile of the day. Ta Irondome (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Glad my assistance was of no use whatsoever -joke. Good to see it'll all be sorted out now! Basket Feudalist 19:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it was of no use. I appreciate an injection of humour thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of section titled "International position"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm not going to try to reach any conclusion from this RfC as it's been so badly organised from the start that there is no way I think consensus can be reached from it. Firstly, as stated at WP:RfC the RfC statement should be neutral and the RfC statement in this case is so far from neutral it's likely to have poisoned the rest of the RfC. Second this RfC has largely been set up as a vote with no comments at all in that section as to why people agree or disagree with a position. Per WP:NOTAVOTE consensus is not reached by a vote but rather by strength of argument. While removing long discussions from the survey section of a RfC is often helpful it's also good to have people's reason for their position in the survey. Thirdly and closely related to two I note that many of the support / oppose positions were "copied" from another section by one editor without any of the accompanying argument. This section was later archived making it very unclear what was going on. Finally significant amounts of the discussion have been unhelpful discussion of editors rather than the issue at hand. Trying to get good input from other previously uninvolved editors in this situation seems likely to be nearly impossible as they are unlikely to be able to work out what the various arguments are etc. With all that in mind I'm going to stop this RfC without a conclusion - without prejudice to a new better run one being started if needed (see next paragraph).
All that said I note that some progress towards a consensus compromise is now being made else where on this page - if this RfC has helped get to that then it's served some purpose. I suggest discussion go on there in the collaborative way it currently appears to be happening as it looks like a consensus version may soon be reached.

Proposal has been made to remove the section entitled "International position". Reasons:

1. Not a feature of any other article noted on sovereignty disputes.
2. Positions of individual countries often do not reflect clear support for one country over the other.
3. Support by any one country reflects narrow national self-interest not the merit of either countries position.
4. Continuous edit wars for no benefit to the encyclopedia, reflecting that Argentina continuously raises the subject, whereas the UK does not. This is used to justify mentioning numerous regional summits in South America. It fails WP:WEIGHT by implying greater support for one party over the other.
5. Frequently comments are simply a call for negotiations nothing more.

The section on "International position" creates a platform for numerous edit wars by nationalist POV pushers for no benefit to the article or the encyclopedia. Requesting comment from none involved editors on the merit of the proposal, noting that its presence is currently paralysing discussion in the talk page and results in numerous personal attacks and other disruptive behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate your support or otherwise. I have transferred comments from above.

Support Retrolord (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - These things become an undifferentiated list that deliver precisely zero information. This is particularly so when the position is a neutral one - listing all the countries that have no view on a dispute is particularly inane. FOARP (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Please comment on the content not individual editors. Any comment on editors will be removed.

Sovereignty disputes are inherently international, since they address the question of whether the community of states recognizes one or more state's sovereignty over a certain area. If the comments by pro-Argentine states are very similar as is stated in the RFC question, like "a call for negotiations nothing more", then they can be succinctly summarized rather than individually listed. But the rationale that "Argentina continuously raises the subject, whereas the UK does not" is not a legitimate reason to sanitize mentions of international controversy. Furthermore, the comment on countries' "narrow national self-interest" is judgmental and inappropriate, since the pro-Argentine position is well-known to cite ideological justifications, such as anti-colonialism. Shrigley (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it's worth bearing in mind that we can reasonably suggest that a lot of countries would put this dispute somewhere pretty close to the bottom of their list of foreign policy priorities. We have a lot of countries out there that don't give two hoots and aren't going to let the fact that Argentina (and it generally is Argentina) is insisting on a statement in support of their position get in the way of their important trade deal that is otherwise all agreed. In some cases, we can demonstrate that they supported (or appeared to support) both sides within the space of a few weeks. Kahastok talk 20:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sovereignty disputes are by definition international, because sovereignty pertains to states, and any dispute would have more than one state involved which makes it international. And no, sovereignty disputes do not address possible recognition by “the community of states.” Why should they? Apcbg (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The comments calling for negotiations are currently summarised in the form you suggest and that is pretty much the format we have tried to follow for some time. However, the reason for my comment if you refer to the discussions above is that the constant raising of the issue by Argentina is used to justify adding mention of numerous summits and demanding we produce chronological proof that it be proved that say France for example still supports the UK position. Now whilst I accept your criticism that frustration with the constant POV pushing and edit wars that result from the inclusion of this sanction has prompted my suggestion, the fact that other articles on sovereignty disputes don't include such a problematic section does indicate it is perhaps unwarranted. However, as noted above the support is pretty equivocal and several countries have made contradictory statements on the issue. Given that its pretty lukewarm for all the rhetoric it does seem more trouble that its worth. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: do take note of how an uninvolved editor expressed his view that international position is of encyclopedic value in the context of an international dispute, and the three editors jumped to his neck without refuting this idea. It is disruptive, the arguments have already been expressed.
"The support is pretty equivocal" >> yes, according to Wee Curry Monster (WP:OR). "In some cases, we can demonstrate that they supported (or appeared to support) both sides" >> and you're choosing instead to delete content?? Why??
The wording in the RFC alone should hint editors that this proposal is the real POV push ( this is not the first time). A push that sadly seems will work out, as in WP consensus beats NPOV everytime... --Langus (t) 00:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Langus please note that the comments preceding yours relate to content, no one is attacking the commentator. Note also his comments on content are the polar opposite of what you espouse but actually reflect what the very editors you're commenting on have suggested. And finally yet again, I simply note your comment is a none too subtle personal attack accusing me of POV pushing. If another uninvolved editor sees fit to remove your comment as I suggest comments on editors should be removed, then please note they have my express and unreserved permission to remove mine also. I am tired of discussions being filibustered by comments on editors not content. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do explain me how I am exactly commenting on you. "Your comment is a none too subtle personal attack accusing me of POV" --then your last comment is an EXPLICIT personal attack accusing me of POV!!! (wtf?)
"Note also his comments on content are the polar opposite of what you espouse but actually reflect what the very editors you're commenting on have suggested" -- ok, this is beyond me....... --Langus (t) 23:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Really, so you suggest that the resolution to remove this section was for POV reasons and that isn't a comment on the originator. And yet again we see you filibustering in a demand I answer you question, when the answer is plain enough. The originator suggests we don't need to mention every summit and that is the polar opposite of what you are pushing for. And no it isn't a personal attack its a comment on your content proposal. Please not the survey above indicates a clear consensus for the proposal. As another editor once observed, those who shout the loudest about bias and POV pushing are usually the worst offenders. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The information is relevant to this article and should not be removed. What is the reasoning here? It's too much work to find sources so let's just take it out? Kahastok's and Wee's claims can be summed up by the following points:
  • "In some cases, we can demonstrate that they supported (or appeared to support) both sides within the space of a few weeks"<-- I believe you are referring to the Caribbean. Why not say this then? Why not produce a sourced statement that reflects this?
  • "the constant raising of the issue by Argentina is used to justify adding mention of numerous summits" <-- Only two summits where to be mentioned (Ibero-American summit and the UNASUR declaration) and nobody asked to mention any more. You can check this talk page to see that one of my proposed edits aimed at doing exactly this by removing an outdated OAS mention amd leaving only a mention to this two.
  • "demanding we produce chronological proof that it be proved that say France for example still supports the UK position" <-- Demanding a source to back a statement is disruptive now?? If France is being mentioned as still supporting the British claim, is it disruptive to ask a source that says that much??
  • "as noted above the support is pretty equivocal and several countries have made contradictory statements on the issue"<-- As noted above this is only true (apparently) for the Caribbean. Latin America backs Argentina in its claim without any doubt, which the last UNASUR meeting proves. Once again: why not mention in the article this dichotomy by Caribbean countries?

This wouldn't be this troublesome if editors Wee and Kahastok accepted the fact that a lot of countries support the Argentinian claim and have decided to be vocal about it. The fact that other countries are not vocal about their support of the British position has an obvious consequence: their positions can not be mentioned in an encyclopedia since there is no source to back such statement. Why should we obscure current, relevant and properly sourced information from this article just because we can not demonstrate an equal support from the international community for the British claim? This is most definitely not NPOV. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts;
  1. How recent is recent, just because a position has not been repeated it doesn't mean it doesn't still hold true. The Treaty of Windsor still holds from 1386, so does that mean Portugal backs the UK position of self-deterination?
  2. If there is a change of government is the country's position assumed to have reverted to neutral?
  3. If a country has a view does to it have to express it regularly for it to be valid?
  4. What constitutes support, do all the EU countries back the UK position as the EU recognises the Islands' sovereignty being with the UK?
  5. Where do the Caribbean countries fit in as UNASUR and Commonwealth members?
  6. Do countries express views for genuine reasons or for their owns reasons? E.g. If Iran backed Argentina's desires, should be this been given equal weight to say the Spanish view? So it becomes mere count of countries Bevo74 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yours is a nice collection indeed; perhaps these questions would be more easily answered if one has beforehand the answer to the following Question 0: In what way does the support by third parties matter in a sovereignty dispute? Apcbg (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
So you're seriously saying that in an international dispute the support by third party countries has no relevance?
@Bevo74: if you have a source from the last 10 or even 15 years stating that France was "particularly supportive of the British position" at that point in time, I'll take it as valid for a statement about now. How hard could that be? Maybe the expression is original research, haven't you thought about that? Well, you can add it as a further thought then. --Langus (t) 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You didn't answer Question 0, did you? In what way exactly does the support by third countries matter in a sovereignty dispute? Apcbg (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Bevo74:
  1. Good question, that's why a clarification is needed wouldn't you agree? Saying that a country "has been" supportive of a position when the most recent source to back that claim is 25 years old is a bit confusing I'd say. Why not state what both sources say then? That France was supportive of the British position during the 1982 war (it could even we extended to the period until the book used as a source was written), what is wrong with accurately using a source?
  2. I'd say that until the new government makes a new opposing statement the position remains what it was (support or oppose). Why would we assume it changes automatically when no statement to back that change exists?
  3. Not necessarily, but it does need to express it to be mentioned and reliably sourced. The key word here is "sources", if we have them we can use them.
  4. This one is easier, please see what the EU ambassador stated on early 2012 about the inclusion of the islands on the Lisbon Treaty.[1] The position of the EU members is clearly neutral (regarding this treaty) unless we can find sources for a given country backing the UK.
  5. The statement by UNASUR is clear in its support to the Argentinian position and also for a calling that the UK resumes negotiations. The issue with the Caribbean countries (two of which are a part of UNASUR) that backed the UK in a summit recently can of course be mentioned since we can properly source it. What is wrong with this?
  6. What reasons make a country backs or not a claim is not for us to interpret. If we can source it, we can add it. Regarding the "list" of countries I'd say that the "relevance" of a country is not for us to decide. If there's support for either side (say, by Iran) and we can source it, then why not add it? We are talking about the "International position" on the matter, what makes Iran (for example) not suited to be mentioned? Who are we to decide which country is worthy of being mentioned?

Please tell me what you think about my answers and if you think something is wrong. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Gaba p

  1. Good question, that's why a clarification is needed wouldn't you agree? Saying that a country "has been" supportive of a position when the most recent source to back that claim is 25 years old is a bit confusing I'd say. Why not state what both sources say then? That France was supportive of the British position during the 1982 war (it could even we extended to the period until the book used as a source was written), what is wrong with accurately using a source?
  2. I'd say that until the new government makes a new opposing statement the position remains what it was (support or oppose). Why would we assume it changes automatically when no statement to back that change exists?
  3. Not necessarily, but it does need to express it to be mentioned and reliably sourced. The key word here is "sources", if we have them we can use them.
  4. This one is easier, please see what the EU ambassador stated on early 2012 about the inclusion of the islands on the Lisbon Treaty.[2] The position of the EU members is clearly neutral (regarding this treaty) unless we can find sources for a given country backing the UK.
  5. The statement by UNASUR is clear in its support to the Argentinian position and also for a calling that the UK resumes negotiations. The issue with the Caribbean countries (two of which are a part of UNASUR) that backed the UK in a summit recently can of course be mentioned since we can properly source it. What is wrong with this?
  6. What reasons make a country backs or not a claim is not for us to interpret. If we can source it, we can add it. Regarding the "list" of countries I'd say that the "relevance" of a country is not for us to decide. If there's support for either side (say, by Iran) and we can source it, then why not add it? We are talking about the "International position" on the matter, what makes Iran (for example) not suited to be mentioned? Who are we to decide which country is worthy of being mentioned?
  1. The problem comes with the tense of the statement, France and Chile did support the UK position. The problem comes with imposing an arbitrary time limit. As the Latin American countries make annoucement quite often, where as the Anglo and Europeans do not it would be difficult to impose a limit that was not POV.
  2. Chile is again a problem, in a democracy less large shifts happen, but if a latin American goverment is otherthrown, the new dictators could well have different views on Argentina and the UK.
  3. As a wikipedian I certainly agree about sources, but due to the availability of recent enough sources this would certainly leave the section looking very pro-Argentinian. Would be better to move the sources to the current claims section?
  4. Very true about the EU. A better example would be NATO. Does membership of NATO imply that a country such as Turkey backs the UK?
  5. For the 'Anglo-Caribbean' nations' position to be included, certainly needs well sourcing, but leaves, the section looking weaker if countries have contradictory positions.
  6. I agree that we should not be placing weight on countries' stated opinions either based on influence or potential politicking. To me, this is a reason to rethink the point of this section as will merely become a list of countries. I had mentioned Iran as its'goverment is very anti-UK, for reasons far removed from this subject.

I don't think any one of the above is enough to remove the section on its' own, but enough weaknesses are there to mean it will forever be a POV battleground. Thank you Bevo74 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


International responses and actions are relevant, but could probably be presented,chronologically and restricted to the more significant ones. If changes in opinion are reported on, those could then be mentioned, and maybe neutral academic sources specifically mentioning the sovereignty dispute can be mentioned, not just within the coverage of historical events. Peter James (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a fairly clear consensus to remove this section, this is what we should be discussing. If there emerges a compelling reason to keep it that may change. But for now the consensus seems clear. You'll note the number of editors who support the proposal, I expect you to respect the consensus. I note Apcbg has asked the question a couple of times, what does the opinion of a 3rd party country matter in a sovereignty dispute? The answer is not a lot really. I presume this is why it has been ignored. There is a demand to mention every summit where a call for negotiations is supposedly support for Argentina's cause. Except those are only made because Argentina demands it and as we saw at the summit of the Americas in 2012, will flounce off in the huff when they don't get it. As I have repeatedly pointed out mentioning of every summit is a clear POV issue. Britain doesn't do it, so you won't see many statements and limiting it to the last time a statement was made is to underplay one actor, whilst of course overplaying the other. There is also a great deal of WP:OR and WP:SYN going on, such as claiming by deductive reasoning that a UNASUR resolution means all of South America supports Argentina. Anticipating the usual personal attacks, you will of course note that I opposed mention of the 2012 Summit of the Americas when Argentina failed to get any statement and the president of Argentina had a missy fit and stormed out. I apply the same standard here. I suggest removing the section as not adding to the article and to bring it in line with the format used on similar articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee the issue is being discussed, you can participate if you want to. Should I present diffs here of you saying to me how a vote is not a mandate and issues should be discussed with to goal of obtaining a consensus? I'd appreciate it if those people who voted also took the time to discuss the matter. I think we should give time to hear the reasons from these other editors too, don't you agree?
I note that summaries of "filibustering" are not helpful. I also note that once again you make an untrue statement: nobody is demanding for every summit regarding the issue to be mentioned. Care to point to who exactly is "demanding" this according to you? Because I recall saying specifically: "Only two summits where to be mentioned (Ibero-American summit and the UNASUR declaration) and nobody asked to mention any more. You can check this talk page to see that one of my proposed edits aimed at doing exactly this by removing an outdated OAS mention and leaving only a mention to this two.". Isn't this clear enough for you?
Expressions like "(Argentina) will flounce off in the huff when they don't get it" and "the president of Argentina had a missy fit and stormed out" are not only extremely unhelpful but demonstrate that your position on the matter is clearly pro-British. I'd suggest you try to keep them to a minimum.
In what way is "deductive reasoning" to say that all state members present at the signing of the last declaration of the UNASUR supporting the Argentinian claim, actually support the Argentinian claim? The countries who signed that declaration compose all of South America with the exception of the French Guyana and Paraguay (suspended at the time) which is what my edit specifically says (please see the UNASUR mention section above). You claim it is OR and SYN to group the countries below the title "South America"?
Regarding Apcbg's question: the position of the international community is important because it puts pressure on both parties and can indicate which side has the bigger support by current political standards. Why do you take this to be an irrelevant piece of information? Regards Gaba p (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


Bevo74:
  1. Again the key word is "sources". If France or (Chile) supported the UK during the war but decided to not be vocal about its support from there on, then of course this decision will have an impact on how the position of said country is presented. If its last statement of support (that can be sourced) is from 25 years ago and France decided to not mention this support ever since, why should we assume the support is still there? If we can source it, we can say it. At the moment all we can say about France is that it was supportive during the war, what is POV about this?
  2. I don't see why Chile is a problem. Its position backing Argentina can be thoroughly documented in present times (the UNASUR declaration is one of those sources). I don't get your mention of dictatorships, if a country is overthrown (or an election takes place) and the head of state changes then nothing changes until they so decide to make a statement about the issue which we can source. Again: why would we assume that a change in the president of a country would automatically mean a change in support for the issue? If they pronounce themselves about it, then we can source it and edit its position accordingly.
  3. The section will look like the sources make it look. It is not our position to obscure sources or statements just because they show a bigger support for one side or the other. Doing that would definitely be editing with a POV.
  4. I have no idea about NATO but will look into it. If there's a statement signed by any number of countries that support the British position then of course we mention it.
  5. We can mention and source the contradictory position of those Caribbean countries who decided to back both positions. We don't need to make any judgments about this, we only mention this "double-backing" and source it.
  6. If a country decided to be vocal about support to any party then why not mention it? Who are we to decide on the reasons that made any country support a given position? Even worst, who are we to decide that the position of a given country does not count because blah, blah..? If the country made its position public then we can source it and mention it, nothing more.
I hope this appropriately answers the issues you presented, if not please do tell me and I'll try to be more clear about it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed consensus is not a vote , its about strength of argument, though you frequently base claims of consensus claiming weight of numbers. But here you're not advancing an argument, you're simply repeating the same points over and again. It is filibustering posting huge tracts of text, demanding detailed answers but you don't actually address the fundamental question. Why do we need this section? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't address the questions? Wee, I took the time to address Bevo74's question one by one and I took the time to answer the issues you raised also one by one. So if I put all this effort it's "filibustering posting huge tracts of text" but at the same time I'm not addressing the questions? There's no way I could ever satisfy your demands of brevity and full answers at the same time, you realize that right?
Regarding Apcbg's question, let me copy/paste my answer that apparently you missed above: "the position of the international community is important because it puts pressure on both parties and can indicate which side has the bigger support by current political standards. Why do you take this to be an irrelevant piece of information?". Is this enough for you? As advancing on the argument, I repeat: I took the time to address the issues raised by the only editor here that took the time to raise some (Bevo74) If you have more questions than the one you just did, please do ask them and I'll try to answer them as fully as possible.
I note that the section is currently under work (above this section). I also note that you do not simply want to remove this section from the article, you also opposed the moving of this section to its own article. So your position is not just "lets remove this from this article because its a lot of work" but actually "lets completely remove this information from Wikipedia". I can't stand behind this position of yours, it's not sensible. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
PS: once again the repeated accusation of "filibustering" in your summaries[3][4] are extremely unhelpful. I'd appreciate it if you would please stop. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
No, you're not answering Bevo74's points, you are simply restating the same position you held previously. This is filibustering as is demanding detailed answers to your tendentious arguments. If you filibuster I will comment on it.

And taking your reason, you're simply referring to summits at which Argentina demands a statement of support, it puts no pressure on Britain whatsoever. Its not about putting pressure on Britain, its about keeping the issue in the news in Argentina for domestic consumption because of the Argentine political landscape; no one else really cares. Argentina's trading partners may issue a statement of support noting they can extract concessions from Argentina for it, then they ignore it other than token gestures. Again it doesn't create any political pressure. Sorry but your claim does not stand up to logical scrutiny. My position is that its information not relevant to the article, it doesn't contribute to the understanding of the issues. That is also filibustering, misrepresentation of the issue and criticising a none position. The purpose of an RFC us to elicit outside comment, note its outside comment ie not from a group in stalemate. Like many RFC I have seen, reams of tendentious argument simply deter it. My point remains there is a consensus to remove it are you going to respect it; yes/no? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) When there is a concern that an editor may be obfuscating using WP:FILIBUSTERS, the recommendation is actually to point this out.

The whole removing information from Wikipedia bit is a red herring. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything and sometimes information does have to be removed for the wider good of the article, the encyclopædia or both.

I do not accept your suggestion that the international position stated as you propose puts any significant pressure on both sides or either side, nor that this is a good reason to include this section. In the past century, the only time that the positions of third parties on the dispute has been a significant factor in events was during the 1982 war. It appears to me that attempting to indicate "which side has the bigger support by current political standards" is not something we ought to be doing and in any case the different approaches taken by the different sides means that this will inevitably be impossible to state neutrally.

I find your answers to Bevo's questions 1 and 2 irreconcilable. But you do seem to be arguing that we should trawl through the statements of each country and state a position for each. This may satisfy some sourcing and OR concerns, but not without creating a major NPOV concerns. Such a process is impossible without giving massively undue WP:WEIGHT to the past statements of the large majority of countries whose relevance and interest is negligible.

I do not believe that these inherent conflicts can be resolved without removing the section, and I do not believe that the section is so important that it would be any significant loss to the article.

I don't actually expect you to pay attention to any of this, of course. Based on the last time I tried to discuss this with you I can probably expect that you will respond by accusing me of lying and laying out a series ad hominem attacks, and then promptly deny that I even made this comment. But it is here for others to note. Kahastok talk 13:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. There is no POV issue in reporting the position of countries that chose to be vocal about their support for one side or the other. Your position that since Argentina has succeed in getting more support than the UK our reporting of such support is POV has no logic whatsoever. We report what we can source. If no country has voiced its support for the British position then we can not include it. There is absolutely no POV issue in reporting what the sources say. You know this, Kahastok knows this, everyone knows this. We could open a DRN if you wish to ask if it's POV to report what we can properly source.
  2. You have no power to decide which country "matters". This is actually offensive. If a country has voiced their opinion and we can source it, why not add it? If we can group countries rather than listing them one by one (like I'm trying to do with UNASUR), even better.
  3. Wee, I will not comment on your political analysis regarding Argentina and its "trading partners" as it is clearly WP:OR and has no place here.
  4. "The purpose of an RFC us to elicit outside comment", you've said it my friend. An RFC is not about votes but on gathering people to comment about the issue at hand. I note that three "outside" editors have commented here: Shrigley, who opposed its removal; Bevo74, who made a series of valid questions and said: "I don't think any one of the above is enough to remove the section on its' own, but enough weaknesses are there to mean it will forever be a POV battleground"; and Peter James, who said "International responses and actions are relevant, but could probably be presented,chronologically and restricted to the more significant ones". All of the "outside" editors who commented on this RFC agreed that the removal of the section was not the appropriate path. Will you respect the consensus? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Bevo74 is not an outside commentator. His first comment is from 6 days before the RFC. Plus, he's been contributing to various Falklands-related articles since at least Feb 2012.[5][6][7] --Langus (t) 19:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
How do reliable sources, which are only about the sovereignty dispute, deal with the positions of other countries and bodies? Isn't that the yardstick we are supposed to use for inclusion and weight? (Hohum @) 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hohum: do you mean how much weight do sources give to a given country's (or body of countries) position or if the positions of other countries are listed in reliable sources? Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Both. Although a lack of inclusion would tend to mean zero weight. (Hohum @) 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You say, "Your position that since Argentina has succeed in getting more support than the UK our reporting of such support is POV has no logic whatsoever". That's not my position and I have no idea how you might have managed to infer that as my position from anything that I've said. Like it or not, the fact that Argentina shouts louder does not necessarily mean that it has greater support. And if we were to keep any such section, neutrality would absolutely require us to take the difference in approach into account. There are, in principle, ways of doing this within policy, but they do not include ignoring the problem as per your arguments.

I am very disappointed that you choose to misquote me. I note that I am not saying that we should be deciding which countries belong - I am saying that we should remove the need to do so. Any remaining section that hoped to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and therefore WP:NPOV would have to find a way of excluding the irrelevant - this is pretty basic stuff. If the requirements of WP:NPOV offend you then that is concerning, but not ultimately a reason not to follow those requirements.

I note that your representation of the status of consensus in the above discussion is significantly inaccurate, failing to take account of the points made above the RFC and in the poll. There is, as things stand, a reasonable consensus for removal on the grounds described above. Kahastok talk 13:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is currently quite reasonable grounds for removing it at this time. I will hold off from doing so until the debate from outside contributors reaches its natural conclusion.
I am disappointed but unsurprised that my comments on the reasons for removing this section have not been answered. I will take that as simply confirmation that a reasonable logical answer could not be formulated. Equally I note that yet again you've simply stated the same position again; a perfect example of filibustering.
Noting Gaba p's comments I will respond, once, thus:
  1. You are not referring to countries that have chosen to be vocal in supporting Argentina, you are referring to countries that have voted for a motion tabled by Argentina at various international summits. Some have taken token action that is all. References to press statements made after the conference are not suitable sources to use for the opinion of individual countries.
  2. I simply note that no one has made a comment on which countries opinion matters, that is a straw man constructed for needless argumentative hogwash. The comment is that the position taken by various countries at any one time is not necessarily suitable for inclusion in this article.
  3. You presume my comments are WP:OR, they are in fact based on observations in political commentaries. An example of WP:OR would be to refer to a press statement issued by UNASUR, claim all South American countries are members and synthesise an edit claiming that the totality of South American countries support Argentina. I simply note you ignored a point you couldn't refute by falsely alleging it to be WP:OR.
  4. The majority of outside comments suggest that the content should be based on WP:RS, ideally neutral 3rd party academic sources. I trust you'll note I've been making that point to you for months. The fact remains the strength of argument leans toward deletion at this present time.
Now Gaba, please feel free to have the WP:LASTWORD as usual, I would have assumed someone of more than average intelligence might realise your argumentative style is counter productive and merely reinforcing the secondary reason I give for removing this section. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment:

    1. One of the four notions of sovereignty is "formal recognition by other sovereign states". If there are other articles on sovereignty disputes they should contain this section if there are sources for its content.
    2. Yes, there are probably countries which position is clear and those whose position is not clear. Lack of clear position is also a position which should be presented to the readers
    3. narrow national self-interests should be explained
    4. eventual edit wars are not a valid argument to delete article's content
    5. same goes for the content of comments
  • I think that this is not a RfC. This is a poll and I am not sure if it is properly organized. Still I will write my opinion above, which is that I am opposed to removal of the section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I have followed the guidelines suggested at WP:RFC pretty much to the letter, if you can identify where I have failed I would be grateful for the feedback. In answer to your comment. The reason for suggested removal is not the endless edit wars, rather one of relevance and conformance with the style of similar articles. As regards relevance, neutral 3rd party sources on the dispute touch on International position only obliquely instead focusing on other issues such as territorial integrity vs self-determination. I otherwise agree with all of the points you make, thank you for commenting. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not say that RfC was not properly organized. I said "This is a poll and I am not sure if it is properly organized." Poll. Not RfC. I was uncertain if this poll was organized properly because according to the guideline Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion: "Content issues are almost never subject to polling."
Since you mentioned RfC I took a closer look at it. I noticed that you actually did not follow the request procedure for RfC.
I would accept your criticism that I should not have referred to the ongoing disruption and POV editing. I accept that by doing so I have effectively undermined my reasoning for starting the RFC ie my belief it was irrelevant but that the disruption was a secondary reason for removing it. Thank for you pointing that out, I will take it on board.
I do however feel that it was maybe harsh commenting on copying other users comments into the RFC. However, I can see your point I should have allowed editors to do it for themselves, including those for the proposal as well as those opposed. Thank you again for pointing out my mistake in that respect, I will take it on board.
May I ask if you believe I was incorrect in that I believed I was being attacked personally? As the originator of a proposal, if the editor suggested it was done for POV reasons, would you not agree it seemed personally targeted. Yes I was irritated but would you not agree they should have commented on content not the editor? It is difficult not to wish to defend your comments when it is alleged the motives for doing so are contrary to the 5 pillars.
Can I ask how I've circumvented the normal process of consensus other than the mistakes I've acknowledged? Wee Curry Monster talk 01:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Surely a "brief, neutral" description still requires you to write the reason why you have called for an RfC - otherwise no description could be written? Similarly, a survey is part of the template for RfC - yes, polls do not replace discussion, but neither does word-count, and taking into account the majority view of editors, so long as they have good reason for holding those opinions, is part of judging the consensus. The basic fact is that it appears the consensus is at least for not including neutral countries, since this would simply form a list of countries that do not care about this issue and not inform the reader in the slightest. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Martin Hogbin

There may be a long-standing and intractable content dispute but that is all it is, a content dispute; it cannot be a reason to delete everything. WP is intended as an encyclopedia for the benefit of its readers not a forum for discussion. Readers may want to know about the subject under dispute, therefore we should say something. As Huhum suggests above we need to look at what reliable secondary and review sources say. If sources disagree then we should give all sourced points of view with appropriate weight to each. I cannot see any problem that cannot be solved by the application of standard WP policies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, sure, but that doesn't meant that there are not good reasons to remove it entirely. I would argue that the fact of near-constant content dispute can often point to a wider problem with the article or section - that suggests that it probably never belonged in the first place. I've dealt with this in other articles where I came to question a particular point and it turned out the entire premise of the section was on dodgy grounds. This is the same.
In this case, having an international positions section is unusual to begin with on an article about such a dispute. Most do not have any such section. And note that the section is primarily based not on the notions of weight given by reliable secondary sources but on news coverage dedicated to the summits and statements made - and in some cases the primary text of the declarations made. These, I would suggest, do not provide any evidence about appropriate weight, and I would note that I have not seen any evidence as of yet that any weight on this section is appropriate. The only place where we rely on a book is ironically the one that editors above are actually trying to tone down, arguing that it specifically refers to the 1982 war.
Removing the section does not just relieve Wikipedia of the continual edit wars and disputes but also relieves it of a section that does not, and it appears cannot, be made to meet our content policies. Kahastok talk 13:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The "near-constant content dispute" is 100% fueled by you and Wee (and Apcbg at times) removing properly sourced content from the section. Please walk me through your argument because I don't follow you: how is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to mention in the section the things we can reliably source? What "proper weight" are you talking about? We are mentioning what we can source. If you have a source for a given country backing the UK claim then please add it, nothing is stopping you. So, here are my questions to you:
  1. How is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to mention in the section things we can reliably source?
  2. How could this section not be "violating weight" according to you? What changes specifically do you think should be made?
  3. Do you agree with Wee that this information should be completely removed from Wikipedia?
Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
PS: "arguing that it specifically refers to the 1982 war", you argue it does not? Could you back this with any quote from that book please? Gaba p (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Gaba, could it be you don't realize that WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV deal with reliably sourced content that is inappropriate for other reasons? Apcbg (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that, because this is a contentious topic, all material should be very well sourced but I can also see that even impeccable sourcing does not guarantee balance within the article. For example if most countries support position A but we can only find sources for countries that support position B, it would be wrong to just put the countries supporting position B in the article as this would present an unbalanced and misleading overall view. If there is absolutely no way of meeting these strict criteria then, I suppose, the section effectively deletes itself but edit wars has never been a valid reason for removing sourced information from WP.
Two ways round the problem might be:
If there is a category of country within which we have good quality sources of information on the great majority of countries in that category then we might include those countries. For example, we can probably give reliable views on nearly all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council so we might have that as a sub-heading with the countries and their positions listed.
For other categories, perhaps we should always start with a high quality secondary source which gives an overview. For example, if we have a source which says, 'Most countries in Europe support position A' then we could list individual European countries without giving an unbalanced view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My point about reliable sources which are only about the subject of the article was intended to mean this: How does a book which is only about the Falklands Island sovereignty dispute, or sovereignty disputes in general, deal with the opinions of other countries and bodies. This should give us guidance on how extensive a section the article should have, and what sort of content it has. I did not mean every news articles about who has what opinion - which although reliable, give us no guidance on whether they should be in this article. How much edit warring it may cause is simply not relevant to inclusion as long as it should otherwise be included.(Hohum @) 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with both Martin and Hohum, that if we are to retain this section, then its composition should be guided by how it is viewed by neutral third party sources. It would certainly give an idea for content and length. I feel it would be very short however. If I may I would suggest:

Lowell S. Gustafson (1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 20 January 2013.

Check the rear cover and you'll see why I suggest it.
However, Martin I fear that you have rather missed the point. I have in fact suggested we remove it for the reason it is somewhat of an oddity, in that no other article on sovereignty disputes features such a section. And if you were to think it through further, what does the position taken by individual countries matter? The answer is in all probability not a lot. Books on the subject devote pages to issues such as territorial integrity vs self-determination, or the applicability of utis possidetis juris but very little to positions taken by 3rd parties.
The fact that its current inclusion induces numerous edit wars is only of secondary consideration. Further your suggestion of using third party sources is an excellent one, one if you check my contribution history I have been suggesting for months. That would assume that all editors are reasonable and seek to produce a text following NPOV. I regret I don't believe that is the case here (the fairly obvious personal attacks against myself and another editor should give you a clue as should WP:FILIBUSTERS). So far, we have seen such pearls of wisdom as:
  • The only source that can be used to describe the Argentine Government position, is statements by the Argentine Government.
  • That if a statement is known to be untrue but is stated by the Argentine Government, we have to report it as "true" from the Argentine perspective. We are not allowed to report that neutral 3rd party academic sources question its accuracy.
  • Statements from sources repeating the Argentine statements corroborate the Argentine claim if you use a quote.
  • I discovered that an author incorrectly quoted another, even if we knew that I could not question quoting a source known to be wrong.
  • Although statements can be sourced to a neutral 3rd party academic source, it has no value beyond the date the book was first published; even it has been through several editions since.
So Martin, whilst I thank you for your comments and in particular your suggestion that we should be basing the content on neutral 3rd party sources. Truly that is music to my ears to hear someone reinforcing a point I have made repeatedly. I also very much agree that we shouldn't be basing this on news sources reporting the results of summits. (And before I am accused by other of doing this for POV reasons again, earlier last year I opposed the mention of the 2012 Summit of the Americas where Argentina failed to get the statement it wanted and stormed off in the huff.) However, I do seriously question whether it belongs here at all. I base this point on examples such as Gustafson above, who only mentions the issue obliquely in passing; ie he doesn't have a separate section for it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this.
It's not the edit warring that means it should be deleted per se. But edit warring can be a symptom of a wider problem. The wider problem is that we cannot possibly judge what is due weight here in the absence of reliable secondary sources on the subject, and the section is based almost entirely on news reports.
The fact that some insist that the only possible way we can do this is by listing every statement we can find, indeed, that it is "actually offensive" to do anything else - when the result of such a policy would be to overwhelm the article with information whose relevance to the dispute is questionable at best - demonstrates why this is a problem. Kahastok talk 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not see how most of the complaints about the section by Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster apply. I was imagining essentially factual information. X supports the British position, Y supports the Argentine position, Z is neutral. I think the US section could be reduced to something along the lines that the US is officially neutral but helped the UK during the Falklands War. Would you not be happy with a simple list of the well sourced positions of countries, subject to my suggestions above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Martin. Kahastok and myself have suggested commentary along the lines you suggest, I don't see any difference between us in that respect. Where we perhaps differ, is that I've always considered the section as superfluous for the reasons stated. Can I ask a few simple questions, would you be prepared to help in preparing such an edit along the lines you suggested? Would you also agree it should be based on what neutral 3rd party academic sources? May I also ask that if those same sources place little weight on it, you would agree with the same weight being added to the article. If you have access to sources such as Gustafson, I would imagine you will see where I'm coming from. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I am certainly willing to help reach an agreement which is in accordance with WP policy. Perhaps a good starting point is that we should require consensus for any material present or added to the section.
Regarding sourcing, it was not my intention to try to lay down the law but just to suggest some principles that would help us work together. For example, on individual countries, sources from the country itself, particularly government sources, should be considered reliable. I would suggest that we do not accept British or Argentine sources about the status of other countries.
As I said before though, just because we do have a reliable source does not mean that we must add a country if doing so would present an unbalanced global view.
As a start, would anyone mind if I added a sub-section 'Permanent members of the UN Security Council' which stated the views of those countries. I think this is a significant and relevant grouping of countries for this purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm taking it as read that you exclude Britain from the equation. This is a standard that we have tried before, but it was shouted down on the argument that it was arbitrary and that if some countries were included all countries had to be included. Clearly, that argument is absurd - I can't think of an issue or dispute in the world in which all outside parties are genuinely equally relevant. But the major problem is, given the lack of appropriate sources on the subject on which due weight can be measured, what (other than your own suggestion) leads you to the conclusion that the P5 will necessarily be the relevant ones?
WP:NPOV is quite clear. We base the weight given to different points in our article on the weight provided by reliable secondary sources on the subject at hand. Outside sources suggest that the appropriate weight here is zero. We should follow that.
I note that a major problem has been editors pushing summits as well as countries. For example, this discussion began when an editor insisted we list the Rio Group summit from 2010 and state or imply based on the statement that all countries present support Argentina. Previous arguments have been that we should include what the same editor would have liked the result of the 2012 Summit of the Americas to be (the summit actually ended inconclusively: President Fernández stormed out after her statement was vetoed). Same editor is currently pushing for a mention of a UNASUR summit claiming that "the totality of the South American states" supports Argentina. He argues that they are neutral because he can source the statement (a pretty serious non sequitur, but never mind).
Now in all these cases, the implication of the user's proposals (that the support for Argentina is clear and unanimous) is rubbish - all of these organisations have members that have expressed support for both sides within the past sixteen months. But perhaps more significantly, the membership of these organisations is largely the same every time. The argument is that all these summits are individually important and individually of strong relevance to the article - even though it's the same countries making the same statement on a different letterhead, year after year, with nothing changed. Now, common sense would suggest that any notion of due weight would at least combine them (as has been the practice) - but we base due weight on the secondary sources on the subject of the dispute as a whole - and that means nothing on any of it. Kahastok talk 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"just because we do have a reliable source does not mean that we must add a country if doing so would present an unbalanced global view", again music to my ears Martin. I agree 100% about presenting a balanced view. Which is diametrically opposite to the view that is paralysing discussions that because it can be sourced it is neutral. Equally we already have sources from some members of the permanent members of the security council, I simply ask you to note that there is an attempt to downplay this claiming the source doesn't validate the statement, it does by the by.
However, I note you have still to address my point. Why should this article be different from the norm? No other article on sovereignty disputes has a similar section. If we look at neutral 3rd party academic sources, the international position is mentioned obliquely and in general I have not seen works that pay much attention to it. Given that these sources pay little attention to it, I ask why should we? Again what does it actually add to the article? I may have missed it but you don't appear to have addressed it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#UNASUR_mention where I state my proposed edit mentioning the UNASUR declaration. The support for the Argentinian position in the issue is hardly arguable. I note that Kahastok and Wee are opposed to mentioning lists of countries but are also opposed to the mention of such countries grouped in a proper form (ie: South America). So basically: they oppose everything.

Kahastok: if you have sources that prove that a given country in South America has backed the UK claim we can use it and add it to the section. Want to present such sources? I note Caribbean countries has already been discussed and I've stated that their inclusion as supporting both claims is of relevance.
"The argument is that all these summits are individually important and individually of strong relevance to the article", I've said this to Wee and yourself more times than I can count now: no one is asking for all summits to be mentioned as if they represented separate groups of countries. They can be presented in a single line of text and regarded as "several/various summits". I can only assume your (and Wee's) continued misrepresentation of my clearly stated position means you are either a- not reading the comments or b- purposely assigning claims to me that are untrue. In any case I'd ask you to be more careful please.
As I mention below, I'd have no problem in presenting the position of the P5 countries grouped as such. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


(Wee: should your above comment be deleted on grounds of 90% of it being dedicated to comment on editors instead of content? Does your wall-of-text qualify as WP:FILIBUSTERING? Sigh...)

I agree, we should use neutral 3rd party sources as much as possible. When this are not present, secondary sources will have to do. The information is still there and is still relevant and there is still no reason to obscure important and properly sourced information from WP.

  • "I also very much agree that we shouldn't be basing this on news sources reporting the results of summits", why do you oppose using news sources as a valid secondary source? Is this position of yours only applicable to this article or to all of WP?

Let me repeat my questions in case anybody cares to answer them (specially Kahastok):

  1. How is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to mention in the section things we can reliably source?
I have explained how this might be possible. If it just happens that we can only reliably source information that represents a minority view then to report it would be NPOV and misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. How could this section not be "violating weight" according to you? What changes specifically do you think should be made?
See my suggestions above.
  1. Do you agree with Wee that this information should be completely removed from Wikipedia?
No, provided that we meet WP criteria in all respects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. Does the call for using only neutral 3rd party sources and not secondary news sources apply also to articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? If so, what would this decision imply for that article in particular?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: "If it just happens that we can only reliably source information that represents a minority view then to report it would be NPOV and misleading", you loose me here. As I understand it, if we can't reliably source something then it doesn't exist as far as WP is concerned. If a country has chosen not to be vocal about its support for the position of either party, then its position can't be sourced and therefore, to us, it hasn't taken a position and we can't mention it. If 90% of countries that chose to be vocal about their support have done so to support a given party, how is reporting this not NPOV? My point is: if we can source it, then we can add it. If there's no source for it, then we can't. Nothing more.
I would have no problem with a P5 sub-section. Note that the US' and China's position is already in there and France's position is currently under dispute since we could find no source for it "current" support and the only sources point to its support of UK during the war. I think I can find something about Russia which would be the one missing. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Gaba, I don't propose to respond in detail as I have previously noted your demand for detailed answers to your comments is a classic example of WP:FILIBUSTERS. I have also more than adequately explained my position, the position of others is very clear. You're simply repeating the same position ad nauseum and it is unhelpful in defining a consensus position. I simply refer you to my previous comment as nothing has in fact changed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I see you are not interested in this discussion anymore. Very well, I'll continue with the editors who do want to contribute to the article. I'll just leave you with one question (out of many) you have not answered and I'd like to know your answer.
  1. Does the call for using only neutral 3rd party sources and not secondary news sources apply also to articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? If so, what would this decision imply for that article in particular? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't suggested not using reliable news sources, I have suggested using reliable work(s) which are only about the topic as guides on the space given and style used. While an exemplar source has been suggested, I don't have access to it. Who does? (Hohum @) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record Hohum @ I was referring to Wee suggesting not using news sources, not you. The source Wee refers to (Gustafson) is from 1988 and he only presents it as a way of saying "this source makes almost no mention of the international position so neither should we". I agree that reliable 3rd party sources are ideal, but in this case what we have are reliable secondary sources (news articles mainly) and I see nothing wrong with the use of such.
Let me repeat my question to Wee so it doesn't get lost:
  1. Does the call for using only neutral 3rd party sources and not secondary news sources apply also to articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? If so, what would this decision imply for that article in particular?
Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I do have Gustafson, and it is available online, though I forget where (sorry). Gaba p, no I just don't intend to repeat myself, when you do so. I have already addressed the point, I would advocate using neutral 3rd party sources for the British position too and positions on the sovereignty referendum. Klaus Dodds for example, has commented on it. This does not mean other sources can't be used for some details. Now having made the point, I trust you won't be frivolously claiming I haven't answered (I have already but never mind), nor will you be using my comments out of context. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Gaba (or anyone), do you have other reliable sources about sovereignty disputes which can guide us about the amount of space, and treatment of the opinions of external bodies? If not, WCMs is the best we have to use as a model. (Hohum @) 19:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no book about sovereignty disputes and its relation with the international position, although several exist (example here). It's quite hard to find mentions of international positions regarding this particular issue on books because the siding of several countries with one party or another is a somewhat recent event (like the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 of which you'll be pressed to find mentions of in books). Note that Gustafson's book is 25 years old and thus will hardly represent the current state of the international community on the issue.
In this case I subscribe to the use of secondary sources mentioning statements on position by any country that wishes to do so. That's why I say we should only mention what we can reliably source. If a group of countries expresses their support for A or B, we mention and source it. If a country/group of countries have an ambiguous position, we mention it and we source it. If a country has stated that it remains neutral, the same. If there is no source for a country's position, we can say nothing about it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So, you are arguing weight and due coverage (WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE) based on no source whatsoever, and you're suggesting that we don't base this on neutral 3rd party sources because the position of individual countries is a "recent event". What you in fact suggesting is that we independently research and identify the position of individual countries, which is to my mind the classic definition of ORIGINAL RESEARCH is it not? If it is in fact a "recent event", which by the way I do not accept, we should not be reporting it per WP:NOTNEWS until such time we can establish a definite change in policy. However, I am not aware of any significant change in position in the last 15 years.
At this point, I am arguing for deletion on the grounds that neutral 3rd party sources that examine the sovereignty dispute place little weight upon the "International position". Gaba p produces we conduct original research to compose a picture, which is clearly unacceptable on policy grounds. I have to note that the weight of argument is in my favour. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No Wee, I propose we use reliable secondary sources and mention what we can source through them. I also propose we use neutral 3rd party sources like Gustafson, which is a good source for the fact that France was supportive of the UK during the war. As we can come up with more 3rd party sources they should be added to the section, WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. There is no original research involved in simply presenting the position of countries as stated by them (be it in a summit or somewhere else) and as reported by reliable secondary sources. It would be OR if we were coming up with our own conclusions about the position of a country based on its "narrow national self-interest not the merit of either countries position" (Wee dixit).
There is absolutely no WP:WEIGHT or WP:DUE issue here because we are not deciding which positions to add and which ones to obscure, we present everything we can source. There would be a WP:WEIGHT or WP:DUE issue if we started deciding by our own criteria which countries matter and which do not (something you and Kahastok apparently propose).
You propose to completely remove valid and properly sourced information from Wikipeda (since you are also opposed to this being moved to its own article) based on low availability (at present) of "neutral 3rd party sources", ie: published books. Please go take a look at the main article Falklands Islands and tell me how many of its sections would have to be removed because they do not comply with this "quality standard". Should we move over there and start proposing that sections be entirely deleted from Wikipedia too?
So no, I have to note that the weight of argument is not in your favor. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
"... we present everything we can source." No. We don't. That's simply not how Wikipedia works. Apcbg (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In this specific case it is until we can bring out more 3rd party sources to add to the section. As I said: WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.
Once again: if you want to restrict articles only to what books say about a given issue then head on over to Falklands Islands and start nominating sections for deletion. It is not always possible to have books to source and so we depend on reliable secondary sources to source the information. In that respect, deciding for ourselves which countries matter and which do not is a severe breach of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYN and pretty much every guideline you can imagine.
Proposing to completely remove all of this properly sourced relevant information from Wikipedia just because you think a country's position matters more (or less) than others is not sensible. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Unless I'm very much mistaken your approach is to collate what you consider are reliable secondary sources, primarily press releases from International summits, conclude that where a resolution is passed in Argentina's favour you can infer that every country that attended supports the Argentine position. Any source that refers to a country supporting the British position is qualified up to and including the year of publication of the reference. So on the basis of your this research you conclude whether a country has a position in favour of Argentina but derogate any source on the British position on the basis of criteria you've arbitrarily defined.
As Martin Hogbin noted "just because we do have a reliable source does not mean that we must add a country if doing so would present an unbalanced global view". What is required to present a balanced global view is an independent piece of research (ideally multiple examples) that has examined the position of countries and made conclusions about the position of individual countries. This will enable us to assess the WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE coverage to apply in this section. That, as you acknowledge, few such sources exist and further that the coverage is minimal, does indicate that the WP:WEIGHT we should apply is minimal or zero. I believe this is a logical coherent argument, your counter argument that its bad to delete content that doesn't present a balanced global view I don't see as either logical or coherent. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are very much mistaken. Secondary sources are news articles about those summits (be it South American summits or European summits) and primary sources are the declarations themselves. A given country signs a declaration that states its full support for a given position and you say that this does not imply full support for that position? You realize how little sense you are making right? In any case we have quite a number of secondary sources to source the outcome of those summits, the declarations themselves can be added simply for informative reasons.

I note that you have up to now presented absolutely no source for any country backing any position, be it the Argentinian or the British one. Your claim that I intend to "derogate" sources stating a given country's backing of the British position is laughably ridiculous since you have presented none. Once again: I propose we add those countries that have voiced their opinion and which we can reliable source through secondary sources, be it backing the British or the Argentinian position. I can't be any more clear about this.
I agree that a neutral 3rd party assessment of the matter would be ideal, sadly books are not always available (and once again WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS). In those cases we rely on secondary sources to assess the WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE coverage to apply to the section, as it is done all over WP.
One more time I ask you: should we head on over to Falklands Islands and start nominating sections for deletion based on this criteria? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As you like to quote essays, WP:INDISCRIMINATE ie Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, precisely what you propose; indiscriminately collecting information but qualifying some sources on the basis of their year of publication. Please indicate which policy allows you to add such a qualification?
And as I see see it, you do not propose to add those countries that have voiced their opinion, you propose to reference summits and infer their opinion. Equally unless a country regularly makes a statement, even on those occasions where we can source an opinion, you wish to qualify it as being valid only up to the year of publication of the source. The net effect is to emphasise the Argentine position, as Argentina demands a statement of support at every summit it attends but, as I note, to derogate the British position, since Britain simply does not. Setting aside the basic flaw in your argument, that from original research you can synthesise a position, your proposal is counter to presenting a balanced global view. Wikipedia's policies preclude the approach you are adamant we must follow.
What you refuse to acknowledge is the issue of WP:WEIGHT, noting that, as you yourself acknowldge, neutral 3rd party sources considering the sovereignty dispute attach little if any weight to it. You simply repeat the same point, if it can be sourced, it must be included. This is filibustering again. In addition, you have acknowledged you have no source to support WP:WEIGHT. I am of the opinion the discussion as effectively come to an end. A policy based argument justifies its removal, a reference to an esaay (WP:WORKINPROGRESS) combined with a flawed methodology does not.
There is zero weight attached to the subject in the literature, the article should attach zero weight to it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me just quickly point a couple of statements made by you in the above comment that are simply not true:
  • I do not intend on qualifying sources by their year of publication. This untrue comment refers obviously to France's position referenced as still supporting the British claim with a 25 years old book. This is not arguable, the statement is not supported by the source. Note however that my proposal is not to remove it but to re-phrase the mention to be in line with the source. Your adamant opposition to this is mesmerizing.
  • "you propose to reference summits and infer their opinion", again untrue. As I stated above, I propose to use reliable secondary sources to source these statements. Go read my comment again please.
  • If a country does not voice its support for a position then we can not source it and therefore we can not add it. The decision by the UK not to call for support from other countries (as Argentina has) has a direct implication: there is no support to add. This is not a synthesis from my part, this is simply the state of the international community. There is no WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE or WP:NPOV issue here since the current state of secondary sources in existence 100% back the fact that a bigger pro-Argentina position is being voiced. Wanting to obscure the whole section from WP simply because you can't add statements regarding a pro-British position by any country, is however a clear violation of WP:NPOV.
I agree that the discussion has apparently come to a stall but I'd advise you check the comments again. Of all the editors commenting only you, Kahastok and Apcbg have stated any reason for the removal of the section. The rest (myself, Langus, Shrigley, Bevo74, Peter James, Martin Hogbin and Antidiskriminator) have stated otherwise. I'm waiting to see Hohum's final position after our discussion. I note that one editor even commented about your behaviour in this RfC in the following way: "I am afraid that your editing is disruptive and aimed to circumvent the normal process of consensus".
You do not have consensus by any measure of the word to remove the section so I'll ask you to please abstain from doing so.
Once again: by your criteria of "no weight in literature" then we should move on to Falklands Islands and remove quite a number of sections. Is this what you propose? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The position advocated is to base weight on the weight attached to the subject in reliable sources. In that respect, ignoring the fixed position you and Langus always adopt, there is a consensus on the process for composing an edit based on the weight attached to the subject in reliable third party sources. In fact, there is no difference of opinion, it is simply the case that, as i've pointed out, such sources attach little if any weight to it.
This does not mean that reliable sources can be used to synthesise a position that there is greater support for Argentina as you now acknowledge is your intention. Your stated intention is to clearly violate WP:NPOV, in that respect you are stating an intention to be disruptive; WP:NPOV is not negotiable. Equally the inherent threat to disrupt Falkland Islands based on a strawman extrapolation is inherently disruptive.
Your claim that I have no provided a reason for removal is patently false. Such a denial is a classic example of further disruptive editing by filibustering. It seems fairly clear to me that there is a consensus position, its a position solidly based in policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Since your last comments are nothing but personal attacks and repeating the same "I am right and you're wrong" statement, I'll simply stop responding until another editor makes a comment. I've told you I intend to "synthesize" nothing and that your position of obscuring relevant and properly sourced material is a clear breach of WP:NPOV. There is also no "strawman extrapolation" and neither is it a threat of any kind, I'm simply pointing out how your position is full of holes as clearly demonstrated by attempting to apply it to the Falklands Islands article (and virtually any article).
I've told you already you have absolutely no consensus for the removal of the section and I expect you will respect that. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
With a bit of luck we may have a current position of France on the issue available if it chooses to respond to this France should back Britain in event of Falklands fight. Could even put to rest the discussion on whether that country still supports or not the UK position. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It is disappointing that you present the stated positions of other editors here so inaccurately. I note that the comments of several of those editors you list, the poll above and the comments in the previous section (which certainly count toward consensus) give a startlingly different conception of the consensus from that which you present.
It is also disappointing that you choose to insist that we must not follow WP:WEIGHT, which as part of WP:NPOV is pretty much fundamental policy. The rule that we follow the weight given to the points in reliable secondary sources about the subject at hand is not some novel invention. It's a basic standard on Wikipedia.
By your everything-we-can-source rule this article could contain anything about anything at all - be it fringe, misleading, irrelevant, off topic - it doesn't matter. Would your article on Earth go on and on about the flat Earth theory? On the basis of "we present everything we can source", the only possible answer is yes. Would we put it also on the article United States? If we are to "present everything we can source", clearly, yes. Would we put it on this article? If "we present everything we can source", we have no choice: yes. It should come as no surprise that this would be unworkable. And it should come as no surprise that it is not and never has been accepted by policy.
The fact that you suggest that there is "no support" for Britain internationally demonstrates nothing but that you haven't looked. It's pretty trivial to find evidence of countries supporting Britain. I even cited such evidence earlier (and no, before you argue the toss, the fact that you ignored it does not mean that I didn't cite it). You seem to have an idea that you only need to do the Argentine side and others can do the British side. No. It is your job as an editor to make your edits and proposals neutral and the evidence would suggest that you haven't even tried. Kahastok talk 23:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok: I'm going to have to ask you to please clarify you accusations that I "present the stated positions of other editors here so inaccurately". Here are the editors I said had stated otherwise (as not supported the removal) in the comments section:
  • Shrigley: no vote, his comment made it crystal clear that he opposed.
  • Bevo74: supported the deletion in the votes but in his final comment so far he stated: "I don't think any one of the above is enough to remove the section on its' own, but enough weaknesses are there to mean it will forever be a POV battleground." Need I make it clearer?
  • Peter James: no vote, stated: "International responses and actions are relevant, but could probably be presented,chronologically and restricted to the more significant ones". Definitely did not support deleting the section.
  • Martin Hogbin: opposed removal.
  • Antidiskriminator: opposed removal (and questioned Wee's behaviour).
Oh and I see now that I forgot about Richard Keatinge who voted "Reduce to one sentence with multiple refs.", clearly no support for the removal.
Remember at the last ANI what was discussed about making untrue statements? You might want to be a little more careful next time.
"The rule that we follow the weight given to the points in reliable secondary sources about the subject at hand is not some novel invention. It's a basic standard on Wikipedia.", thank you my friend. That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. Let's base on reliable secondary sources (like the ones used right now) and add reliable 3rd party sources (ie: published books) as they come along. Glad to see we agree on this.
"It's pretty trivial to find evidence of countries supporting Britain", it is? Then why haven't you added any to the section? The only mention you made was of some Caribbean countries backing the UK at a recent summit but did not add it, why is that? Are you expecting me to do it? Why is that?
"You seem to have an idea that you only need to do the Argentine side and others can do the British side", no I do not. As I have said previously, we definitely should mention the ambivalent position of those Caribbean countries you mentioned. I have not come across any other position regarding support for the UK, am I in breach of some WP guideline here for not finding sources? If you say sources are so easy to find, why haven't you presented them? Why haven't you added them to the section? I really don't see the logic in your reasoning here. You act as if I were to oppose the addition of sources stating support for the British claim by a given country when nothing could be further away from the truth.
"By your everything-we-can-source rule this article could contain anything about anything at all - be it fringe, misleading, irrelevant, off topic - it doesn't matter", now this is a gross strawman. If you object to the addition of a given country (or group of countries) in the section on account of WP:FRINGE or WP:OFFTOPIC then please speak up. The positions currently present are all of them 100% properly sourced by reliable secondary sources. Again your position makes little sense.
I'm not following your position Kahastok: on the one hand you want to completely remove this information from this article as irrelevant and on the other hand you accuse me of violating WP:NPOV because I haven't added to the article sources presenting countries backing the UK claim (which I have not found and I'd welcome if you have them). Make up your mind: should we delete this section or should I continue to expand it?
Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to be a genius or an experienced WP editor to see there's no consensus here. I wish I could say I'm perplexed at the fact that people have completely different versions of reality, but sadly that's not the case at the Falklands-related articles.
Wee (and I think that Kahastok too) said: "Argentina demands a statement of support at every summit it attends but, as I note, to derogate the British position, since Britain simply does not." If we can source this, maybe we could include it in the article, in lieu of WP:NPOV. Although not in those exact words, of course, as they clearly fail that very same policy.
And no, it is not my job to source this, as Kahastok seems to imply above. --Langus (t) 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Quote "it is not my job to source this", actually it is, after 2 years of editing wikipedia you still fail to realise you are required to produce NPOV content. You can't write POV content and expect others to add POV content to balance it out. I'm perplexed that after numerous attempts by myself and others to explain a basic policy, you still don't get it. As far as I can see from day 1 you have seen your role to be to ensure the Argentine POV is represented, utterly failing to comprehend it isn't. Your role is simply to describe how neutral sources see the Argentine and British positions. If you have a different perspective of reality, that simply reflects the fact you just don't get it, nothing more.
Equally you still don't get that consensus is about strength of argument and if one set of editors is arguing solidly from the basis of policy and another is suggesting a route that is fundamentally at odds with policy, then consensus is with the former not the latter. Nor does consensus require us to attain your assent for a change, that is simply a recipe for disruptive editors to stall content improvement as we see here. At this point I would be perfectly within my rights to proceed with the proposed change, since there is the basis for a consensus approach. You can't stall for ever, arguing that we must include every scrap of indiscriminate information as you insist. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
While I am please to note that you (Gaba) agree that we should base weight on the coverage by reliable sources on the subject, I wonder if you have missed my meaning since this does not appear to be what you have been arguing for. Right now, the section is not based on reliable secondary sources on the subject (i.e. sources about the sovereignty dispute). Rather, it is based on sources like this one - a source about a summit - or on sources about statements. These are not appropriate for the purposes of determining WP:WEIGHT on an article on the subject of the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the weight given to different points in a source about an individual statement is likely to match the weight that we should be giving to an entire section in the article - and every reason to assume that it will not. Kahastok talk 18:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
"Quote "it is not my job to source this", actually it is", actually it is not. It is OUR job to add content to the encyclopedia. This is a collaborative project in case you weren't aware. If you believe something is missing from the article then go ahead and fix it. Don't expect other editors to do it for you and then accuse them of POV if they don't.

"You can't write POV content and expect others to add POV content to balance it out", untrue statement. There's no POV content being added, the positions of those countries are completely sourced by reliable secondary sources and the only ones trying to obscure positions from being presented in a clear breach of WP:NPOV is you and Kahastok.
"Your role is simply to describe how neutral sources see the Argentine and British positions", that's exactly what we are aiming to do by presenting reliable secondary sources. Again it is you who's on a crusade to remove proper content from Wikipedia.
"At this point I would be perfectly within my rights to proceed with the proposed change", no you would not and I strongly advise you don't since it will only escalate this issue.
Finally please note Wee's obvious WP:CANVASSING recruiting more old friends to help him close this RfC. This is quite unacceptable Wee, you should know better by now. The statement by editor Antidiskriminator about your behaviour ("your editing is disruptive and aimed to circumvent the normal process of consensus") is looking more and more accurate with every new comment of yours. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have had no contact in any meaningful way with WCM in all my brief time at Wiki. I recieved a message (open, on my page), I spent 5 bloody hours reading this dreary argument in its horrid entirity yesterday. Credit me some intellectual indepencdence. I camr to the conclusion that the section is garbage and has no place in the article. It seems to reek of what you wikis call undue weight. How many of the major works out there concentrate on the position of third party countries and relatively obscure organisations in this dispute? As the sources keeping this tendentious section alive appear to consist of press releases and other "sources" based on obscure and often contradictory announcements
I say remove, and/or merge some of the more useful parts into already existing sections. Irondome (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems thoroughly bizarre that you expect others to source your proposals. I see no reason why I should scrabble about finding sources for a proposal that I oppose on principle in a section that I wish to remove - the idea that I should seems thoroughly bizarre. The fact that your position appears to be based on the premise that the British have no support, as I say, is your problem. Nobody else's. And even if we weren't simultaneously discussing removing the section it would be reason enough to oppose without any of the other concerns.
And I don't think substituting "untrue statement" for "lie" helps you any. The problem is the sentiment - that you are accusing people of deliberately telling falsehoods. The exact terminology you use is immaterial. Kahastok talk 18:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a brief background. I am a Brit, and was 19 when the war was in progress, At the time I was highly pro-Argentine, but the passage of years has given me a more neutral viewpoint. In no way am I particularly engaged with the subject, as other subjects of controversy on Wiki tend to engage me more. However I must say that I agree with the removal of this section.
The above was part of my opening thoughts that I deleted in the earlier hours because I was dissatisfied with the wording. I should have kept it visible, but I do not know how to score through sections that I have had second thoughts about. I am an uninvolved editor, who has never concerned himself with this whole painful topic. That the section in my opinion is unecessary (except perhaps to push an arguably pro Argentine POV in terms of endless lists of otherwise eminently forgettable regional summits that have trotted out the obligitory anti-Uk position) is my view after having the read it and the painful repetitive argumentation here, is my opinion. Irondome (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually thought it was almost an honour that as a new editor, I was called to express an opinion. Perhaps a more double - edged honour to be debating wioth some of the most well known and notorious figures :) on Wiki, in this specialisation. I have followed the likes of WCM, Gabba, Langus, the notorious sockpuppet incident, avidly via talk pages over the months. Its far better than any soap.
But I have had NO input into these debates until now. I have never addressed any of you before. So it be called a "friend" of WCM, Gabba, is both totally innaccurate and slightly flattering. I have left a few technical points on the FW article, and done a few minor edits. All military, technical and non controversial. I assume WCM was taking more notice of me than I realised. Fame at last! I am recognised by you guys as an actual wiki entity.
Seriously. I have doubts about the section in its present form, but I cannot agree to its total destruction, WCM. Why cant it be hived off into a new article. Then it can be a source of an eternal edit war, much like the Kashmir or Israel/palestine related pages, with occasional grisly flare ups.
I recognise the different factions and personalities here now, and I think you all basically repect each others integrity and knowledge. So the "UK faction" if such a tendency exists here can quite confidently let the "internationalists" get on with it. I actually think it would be quite civilised. And most importantly, it would guarantee my continued entertainment via the talk pages. So. Remove, and let it go free to mutate into the wikiwild. The lesser spotted new tendentious article. Irondome (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Are there sources to sustain such an article per WP:GNG? I've seen no relevant evidence so far. Kahastok talk 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
One last thought. The only question here is, is this section viable? Does it conform to the various wiki strictures, and if not, does that make the section invalid. The only way to test that is to let it be nominated, or whatever the procedure is, into a small seperate article. It will then be judged by the whole wiki community as to whether it should be here in any form.Irondome (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
@Kahastok: "It seems thoroughly bizarre that you expect others to source your proposals", that is absolutely not what I expect. Everything in the section right now is completely sourced and I never said I expected anybody else to source what I add to the article. I expect you and Wee to help improve the article and bring all this information you keep talking about but never present. It is the responsibility of all of us to do so, not just mine. As I've told you a dozen times already I have found no new information regarding the position of countries backing the UK claim (with the exception of those Caribbean countries which you brought up but for some reason did not include in the article, perhaps expecting me to do so?) and the moment I do I will personally add it to the section. I find it extremely odd that you claim to have all this information but will not add to the article and neither present it here.
"your position appears to be based on the premise that the British have no support", I did not say that. Ever. I said that a number of countries have lately decided to be vocal about their support for the Argentinian position, which can be sourced through reliable secondary sources, while the same can not be said for the British position. If something can't be sourced then it can't be added to WP. I know you understand this.
@Irondome: I give every editor intellectual independence and I apologize for calling you an "old friend" of Wee, I should not have done that.
I agree with your position of opposing the total destruction of this section from WP. As I've said, if the section is found to be not suited for the article for some reason, then we could simply move it to its own article. The nomination of the section as a separate article could be a good idea, as long as everybody agrees to respect the outcome be it Keep, Merge or Delete.
Finally: I'm happy that you find our misadventures amusing and entertaining. At least somebody is enjoying all this WP:DRAMA :) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I dont think the section, or proposed article would be viable Gabba. Looking at the guide, it would seem to have issues on Significance, and just a collection of information fronts, at least. They may be others, and thats to my inexperienced eye. If it fails to survive as an article then it should be removed. Thats the only way. And this is the only way to sort this. Kill or cure I say @WCM. I personally dont think its a viable section or article, but let the community decide.Irondome (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Irondome, I would have thought being described as my friend would have been instant grounds for an incivility block. You were asked because you do close RFC and difficult AFD which few will. Funnily enough, if you recall the last one we were both involved in you closed against my position, so you're obviously the first port of call if I wanted to canvas anyone.
However, I should perhaps have warned you that anyone asked for an opinion, would naturally be accused of being incapable of thinking for themselves. And doing things openly is obviously done in bad faith.
I regret per WP:BEANS that you suggested this be hived off to a separate article, as an indiscriminate collection of crap to prove Gaba p's personal belief "that a bigger pro-Argentine position is being voiced" ie WP:OR and WP:SYN pushing WP:POV. Funnily enough as Klaus Dodd's recently voiced, it actually demonstrates "a sign of “profound weakness". Thats an opinion easy to source by the way. You're right, its not something that would survive as an article in its own right but does the community need the crap that will inevitably go along with its removal?
Gaba p may I politely suggest you don't shove beans up your nose..... Wee Curry Monster talk 20:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
@Irondome: Not always an article survives as such because at times it is proposed it be merged to an already existing article. It's an intermediate position between an independent article or nothing at all. The current section has quite a lot of relevant and properly sourced information, it has been up for quite some time now and that's the way I believe it should stay; as a section of the currently article.
As I've pointed out already, the position that a section can only exist if it is sourced by published books would deprive a great deal of articles of a great deal of sections. One needs to go no further than Falklands Islands to see that by that standard a lot of sections over there would not survive (or the whole Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 article). It is a flawed "quality test".
(PS: My nick is "Gaba" or "Gaba_p", not "Gabba") Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
@Wee: your comments are becoming more aggressive with each one Wee. I recommend you take some fresh air and tone it down so as to not repeat "mistakes" from the past.
Your grounds for removal have been proved to be POV and not applicable to any other article out there without compromising it entirely. Secondary sources are perfectly valid and this "indiscriminate collection of crap" as you call it is quite an informative section regarding the position of other nations. Your pro-British crusade is known throughout WP Wee, there's no need to source your position to Dodds or anybody else, your comments are more than enough. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
What a load of nonsense, you admit your intention is to prove a premise, its plainly POV editing and what you propose is to add an indiscriminate load of crap. You can't argue on the basis of WP:WEIGHT and invent a complete strawman that anything you can source can be added. Take that to WP:NPOVN, I could do with a laugh. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I apologise Gaba. We all have "positions" I think. But they should be positions based on a solid unbiased intellectual frame. There is no shame in positions, as such. @Wee I accept totally the premise that will generate additional grief, but what to do? The argument here is I believe exhausted. I suggest we all provide final summary positions, and a simple majority decision of those who have provided coherent positions decide. My main concern here is in all honsty, is it Wiki "legal" to be getting rid of this section in its entirety, or should it be left to expire under community scructiny, if it fails article guidelines. Irondome (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes the argument is exhausted, move it to a separate article ready for deletion as an unsustainable article. What should it be called though, List of new reports on summits where Argentina has tabled a motion on the the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Precisely :) Irondome (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Gaba. A dash of wry humour is not exactly a warlike attitude. Anyway, I will leave you lads to it. Good luck Irondome (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, Gaba p complaining of sarcasm, wow. Cough, splutter, choke...
Seriously, going on to do a distinctly POV edit of your personal opinion was not helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I apologise for being flip. Didnt wish to add any fuel to fires. However WCM sums up the issue in broad satire with the absurd title. This is exactly what it will be. Does Wiki coverage of the FI dispute also require this?Irondome (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:CANVASSING, just great. And excuse me but again, no, it is not my job to source things sprouted from Wee's mind. I even disagree with this particular thought, and I doubt it could be reliably sourced. --Langus (t) 23:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I assume that is an attack on me? I suggest you read my points to Gaba upthread, re my presence. He has accepted it, as far as Im aware. As I said, I came to this fresh and spent hours wading through this stuff. I came to the conclusion the section is unhelpful. You may not agree with it, but it a genuine viewpoint. I dont think that qualifies as canvassing in any damaging or disruptive way.Irondome (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't presume so Irondome. WP:CANVASSING is the sole responsibility of the editor doing it, not the editor/s called upon. If I may speak for Langus I'd say that nobody is holding anything against you as far as I can tell. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thats fine Gaba. Others may also notice that I have tried to make a few new points and suggestions. My opinion runs directly counter to WCM in terms of my reluctance to erase this section per se. I have suggested that the section be hived off as a small specialist article. It can then stand or fall by its inherent suitability (or lack of) as a wiki article. The wider community will decide. Im hardly anyones tool here.Irondome (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, you've done nothing wrong Irondome. --Langus (t) 01:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Some more thoughts

Sorry that I have not been able to help much. I still think the P5 counties could have their own section. The reason for choosing this particular group is that they have the power to veto UN resolutions thus we know there will never be a UN resolution about this dispute that is seriously contrary to the stated position of any P5 country.

For the rest of the world, would having a table, or three sections, Pro British, Pro Argentine, Neutral, based on the last stated position of counties be an idea? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated before I would have no problem in having a sub-section for the P5 countries, I think it's a pretty good idea.
A table or only three separated sections (pro UK, pro Argentina, Neutral) would be complicated due to the positions of some countries being somewhat in a grey area. I would say separate into:
  • UN statements
  • P5 positions
  • Clearly pro-British
  • Clearly pro-Argentinian
    • Calling for negotiation/dialogue (sub section of pro-Argentina because the UK opposes dialogue)
  • Strictly neutral.
  • Ambivalent (some Caribbean states could go here)
Martin, would you be willing to wrap up a draft of the P5 section and present it here? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Until someone finds a justification from relevant references about sovereignty disputes for including a significant section on the opinion of other countries or bodies, it seems pointless for you to keep suggesting adding details about it. (Hohum @) 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Martin, could I again ask you a question as it seems you are either ignoring it deliberately for a reason, which I presume there is a good reason for, or you simply missed it. If the former feel free to email me if you prefer. As I note sources on the sovereignty dispute attach little if any weight to International positions, surely the article should do the same? And as regards last stated position, err, how do you propose to source that? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a seriously flawed argument being used here to back the deletion or refuse the expansion of the section: that we should strictly adhere to a similar extension present in published books. I ask anyone reading this to please go for example to the Falklands Islands article and try to apply this "rejection standard" to almost any section. You'll see that, leaving out the ones specifically dealing with historical events, there is virtually no section that could remain on the article. The sections are almost exclusively sourced by reliable sources (mostly newspapers and online articles) such as the ones used in the section being discussed. What about articles regarding more recent events such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? Should we nominate that entire article for deletion?
Now take one of them most (if not the most) controversial topics in WP: the Israel-Palestine conflict. Feel free to grab a random article, here are a few:
Imagine going over to any of those articles and telling the editors over there that if the sections inside them can't be made to comply with the extension present in published books then they have to go. Please do and then come back here with the answer they give you.
Could I ask editors here supporting this "rejection standard" which part of WP:UNDUE is being breached/violated by the section? Would you be so kind as to quote the specific part that is not being respected? I believe that would help us find the core of this disagreement. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Simply a straw man, irrelevant and unnecessary argumentation, a) no one is saying any such thing b) notably none of those articles are on sovereignty disputes and c) people are discussing WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. The suggestion is to judge weight on the weight attached to the subject in reliable secondary sources, pretty much a standard on wikipedia. This absurd extrapolation that you apply the same suggestion to a current event is just being silly. Were the subject considered in reliable secondary sources, you would have no problem demonstrating it, the fact you don't and are resorting to filibustering, not to mention you openly state your intention to demonstrate a POV, does tend to support there's is zero weight attached to the subject.Wee Curry Monster talk 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Worth noting - though it should be common sense - that it we need to base the section on reliable sources on the subject at hand. It's no good citing this and saying, oh yes, that's a reliable source and it gives the point some weight so we have to put it in - it and others like it are patently not sources about the dispute but sources specifically focussed on summits and so on. Obviously, there is room for manoeuvre with recent or future events that pass the 10-year test (will this point still be relevant in ten years?), but this would not credibly apply in this situation - it's not as though no third country ever took a position before the last couple of years. Kahastok talk 18:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Would it be more acceptable to editors if any citations offered in this section were headlined specifically about the statement, declaration, whatever. Ie, "Chile reaffirms support for Argentine FI stance" and it be at least 10 years old? If we could work towards an acceptable def of what is an acceptable source (even through slightly gritted teeth) would that help? We must press on here and not get bogged down Irondome (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
My thinking is that the above hypothetical piece, if it was on the bbc website from say 2001, would be acceptable. What do you think Wee et al? The question of whether the section of itself is questionable, I think we should ruthlessly put aside while we reach a consensus on what is a universally accepted source, and what is shite.Irondome (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
We should start by asking what the WP:WEIGHT given to the international position by reliable sources about the dispute is. If the answer is "none", or less weight than we can plausibly give in an article - as it appears to be - then that's simple. We simply have no section.
If the books and other scholarly sources did contain a section, we would then look to what positions it chose. If it did provide a full list of countries and last known positions - and I doubt it would - then we would go with that. If it gave a few important cases and ignored the rest, we would do that. If it generalised based on geography and membership of international organisations, we would do that. If it discussed the point exclusively in the context of the 1982 conflict, we would do that. Only once we had that would we then start looking at sources to demonstrate the individual positions, to allow for any change from the text of the source from which we are judging weight. This would also allow us to judge how much detail we should be going into on each side, and thus make the appropriate allowance for the difference in approach between the two sides.
Gaba clearly has his own ideas, but they are not based on due weight from reliable sources but on his own feelings, apparently guided by his POV (and I note that he has made it clear that he feels that we should present Britain as having no support whatsoever).
We don't need to do that: as I say, the current evidence is that the appropriate weight is none because the reliable sources about the dispute do not give significant coverage to this point.
A significant part of the problem with having a whole article section on which the reliable sources place no significant WP:WEIGHT - such as this at present, and such as you effectively suggest - is that we then have no means to judge what WP:WEIGHT should then be given to individual points within that section. This in turn causes article instability - as it has here: as I've said before in this discussion, the instability is not a reason to remove in and of itself, but it is a symptom of a deeper problem with the content. Kahastok talk 18:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree about Weight. That was one of my initial issues, along with Collecting lists of information. But that argument should be put aside for now. Lets focus on what is an acceptable sourceIrondome (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably escaped your notice as the verbiage added to deter community input hides it but I suggested Gustafson above. I could also suggest Signals of War by Friedman and Gamba-Stonehouse but whilst the latter is accurate for the period from the 1960s onward, it does contain some fundamental errors in the early history. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Were the subject considered in reliable secondary sources, you would have no problem demonstrating it" <-- Wee
  • "We should start by asking what the WP:WEIGHT given to the international position by reliable sources about the dispute is" <-- Kahastok

Am I understanding you correctly Kahastok and Wee, are you saying that established newspapers are not a reliable secondary source??
We establish WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE guided by reliable secondary sources like pretty much every other article in WP does. Attempting to apply the standard you came up with here would deprive a large number of articles of a large number of sections (see list of Israel-Palestine articles above) The standard is absurd and inapplicable.
Once again Kahastok and Wee: could you please quote which part of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE you believe is being breached here? It's a simple question, could you please address it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am tempted to question your WP:COMPETENCE to edit as you seem to believe simply repeating the same point and ignoring anything in reply is how to discuss a subject. I refer you to my previous answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Wee, do you seriously believe that other editors don't see right through you weaseling around my questions? Because it is quite obvious that you are refusing to answer them. Your previous answer did not mention absolutely anything about the guidelines you claim are being breached. Look, this is amazingly simple, I'll post two questions and you try to answer them separately so we can trace the root of this disagreement, what do you say? Here they go:
  1. Are you saying that established newspapers are not a reliable secondary source?
  2. Could you please quote which part of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE you believe is being breached here?
Am I asking too much here? That you (or Kahastok) answer two simple questions separately? Should we not be trying to reach a consensus here? Is this really too much to ask? Look, I'll even save you the trouble of writing a whole comment, you can just use the following and post your answers there:
Wee's answers:
  1. ...
  2. ...
I'll await your reply noting that the only way to move forward is if we first agree on what guideline is being violated and what are we calling reliable sources. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I find your patronising and aggressive tone here distinctly unhelpful, and your ultimatum could almost have been designed to get people's backs up. Particularly when your questions have already been answered. You don't just get to repeat questions over and over until you get the answers you want. It doesn't work like that.
Your questions are already answered above, and as such I refer you to my previous comment, just as Curry Monster referred you to his. Kahastok talk 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Amazing how you just keep finding ways to get out of answering two simple questions. You and Wee are repeatedly hiding behind rhetoric to avoid having to answer two very simple questions. Your statements that "this has already been answered" fool exactly no one. You have not answered neither of them.

Seeing that Wee and Kahastok refuse downright to answer two simple questions aimed at finding the root of the disagreement, I'll just post them here so any editor can answer them:


  1. Are established newspapers a reliable secondary source?
  2. Could you please quote which part of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE you believe is being breached by the section in discussion?


I'll post my own answers and hope others follow:

  1. Yes, I believe they are.
  2. No part of those guidelines is being breached.

Please feel free to add your answers, if we don't agree on these basic principles then there is no way we can ever get to the root of this issue. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The context of the question posed is bordering on "have you stopped beating your wife?", but I'll answer. In reverse order.
2. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
The most relevant reliable sources are ones solely about the article subject.
1. Quality newspapers can be reliable sources, but they are pretty far down the list compared to books on the subject, then generically, sovereignty disputes.
That is not to say that I think newspapers shouldn't be used in the article, just that the weight of their coverage should be guided by better sources.
(Hohum @) 12:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I have answered the same questions more than once myself.
1. I have at no point said newspapers are not a reliable source, this is a straw man Gaba p constructed. They are not suitable though for establishing weight.
2. You are clearly violating weight by giving undue prominence to newspaper reports of summits. NPOV requires us to present coverage on a topic that is representative of the coverage and books on sovereignty disputes provide such a guideline as to the coverage. Very few attach significance to the International position of other countries; which goes a long way to showing why this article is unique in having such a section.
You see gathering such sources as proving a premise, the very gathering of sources in that manner is synthesising a position through original research. All of which I have quietly explained before and if you're repeatedly claiming I haven't then that is a utter falsehood. At this point I am minded to simply remove this section, there is clearly a consensus to do so and the tactics here are simply filibustering. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest you do not remove the section Wee. There is clearly not consensus for doing so and as I've explained below, your argument that we should base the extent of a section/article based exclusively on books and completely delete everything else is absurd. Read my comment below please. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


Thank you Hohum, even though you apparently consider them "trick" questions (which they are not or are least were not designed to be) I finally have a direct and specific answer after all that beating around the bush by Wee and Kahastok. Really, thank you.
So, let's try to find some common ground then. We agree that reliable sources should dictate whether a topic should be present in WP and to what extent. So far so good, right? We both agree that established newspapers are reliable sources, but that having even better sources (like say a couple of book mentioning the sovereignty dispute in the international context) would be "ideal". The issue is then (correct me if I'm wrong), what do we do when ideal is unattainable? What Wee proposes is delete all information completely from Wikipedia. I believe this is not a sensible proposal. I say we take a look at what other articles do in this case. Take for example the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (or pretty much any article about that conflict) which is a topic even more controversial and prone to edit-warring and POV pushing than this one. Now take almost any section in that article and see how many published books vs how many newspapers are used as sources. Take as another example Gibraltar which is a more closely related topic to this one. See the "Transport" section (or the main article itself Transport in Gibraltar), it's based exclusively on online articles and newspapers. Would it be sensible for me to go over there and nominate that section for complete deletion based on Wee's criteria of WP:WEIGHT based on published books exclusively?
The point is: we agree about the "ideal" situation but since WP is a work in progress we make do with what is available, just like it is done all over WP. We base WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE on what reliable sources say (in this case, mainly news articles). If an event is significant enough to be covered by various newspapers, I say it passes the test of being notable enough to be included.
As Wee said "NPOV requires us to present coverage on a topic that is representative of the coverage" (except he wishes to asses the coverage based exclusively on published books about the topic and delete everything else, which is of course absurd). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Well there is some consensus about fit sources here, I think weight is the big issue. Gaba, im a bit perplexed by the deployment of these sources in the section. (Im sorry I cant do source hyperlinks yet so bear with me) 96, 98. Now 96 is a link to the official EU "position" on the FI. It seems to be EU site. Very strong source. It supports the text stating the UKs tacit support for the UK, position, and also confirms the FI are eligable to EU funds. That would appear to further confirm the solidity of the EU/UK "understanding" on this issue. But you then deploy 98. Now that source is equally respectable, but it is an Argentinian newspaper article reporting what appears to be an off the cuff remark saying that Argentina should not take the EU position re the Falklands as support for the UK. Now I would say that the newspaper article is a relatively weaker source than 96, yet you deploy 98 to trump the information supported by 96. I understand you are deploying your limited sources skilfully, but I think you are attempting to steer the article narrative there, on a weaker source than 96. As ive said, I dont have any issues with mild POV, just as long as its impeccably sourced, with the weightier cites guiding the text. If it was me, I would take the Argentinian media-supported caveat out. Its straining a vital argument too far on a relatively weaker source. Irondome (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually gaba, I restated what I had already said. Newspaper reports are not useful in deciding the amount of wieght to give them in this article. There is no way of deciding the proportion of the article that should devote to a subject from them - a source entirely about the subject clearly does. Perhaps you could answer a direct question. How do you think they can? (Hohum @) 23:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
@Irondome: I'll have to correct you on a couple of points there. Source 96 is absolutely not the EU "position" on the claim. It makes no mention of it and any attempt to extract that would be WP:OR (you can ask Wee if you think I'm off here). Source 96 is correctly being used to source that the EU classes the islands as an OCT, nothing else (and this is correct). Source 98 is MercoPress, an established news agency used all over WP and based in Uruguay (not Argentina). Furthermore source 98 quotes the exact statements by the European Union ambassador making no ad-hoc interpretation at all and his statements are rather clear about the EU maintaining a neutral position on the issue. Feel free to ask me if anything isn't clear to you. Regards.

@Hohum: "There is no way of deciding the proportion of the article that should devote to a subject from them - a source entirely about the subject clearly does", and what should we do in those cases where a book entirely about the subject is not available? How do you believe this "quality standard" would apply to other articles in WP? It is not a reasonable yard-stick to use because only a minimum number of articles (or sections within them) would pass such test. We might as well go ahead and delete half of WP's database.
Regarding your question, I believe that if an issue has been deemed important/notable enough to be covered in a reliable secondary source such as an established newspaper (even more so if more than one source can be found) then that gives us enough reason to conclude it is worth of being at least mentioned in WP. Note that I'm not saying we should devote an entire article to each countries' position, merely a simple mention properly sourced would be enough. Regards Gaba p (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You ask what happens if a book entirely about the subject is not available. But this is not the case here, so in this case the question is not one that we have any need to concern ourselves with. I note that your suggestion we should mention any point that can be sourced to an established newspaper runs directly counter to policy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and considers enduring notability of events: all newspapers contains many things that are unsuitable for Wikipedia. Today's newspaper is tomorrow's chip paper. Kahastok talk 13:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is an issue we should be concerned with because you are trying to apply an absurd "quality standard" to the section of an article that very very few articles/sections in WP would pass. You say there are books about the subject available, could you present them please? I searched but I could not find books written specifically about the international position on sovereignty disputes.
Please give WP:NOTNEWSPAPER another read. That guideline deals with breaking/recent events that would be more suitable for Wikinews. The events sourced in the section under discussion are at least 7 months old and can hardly be regarded as breaking news.
I'd like to direct you to the section I've opened at the bottom of this talk page where you can state what specific issues should be address in the section so as to remove the supposed POV and WEIGHT issues you and Wee claim it has, with the aim of reaching a compromise. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
@Kahastok and everyone else advocating for using books to determine the appropriate weight needed for inclusion: What do you think we should about the proposal below? (FI's 2013 referendum) What do you think we should do about the banning of the Falkland Islands flagged vessel from the ports of Mercosur members? Because if we are going to apply these harsh requirements to prove relevance, they most probably will go to the recycle bin too... --Langus (t) 01:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Again WP:COMPETENCE, the suggestion is pretty much a benchmark for WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE on wikipedia ie they're not harsh requirements. Whats the alternative - you add anything you can source, without any constraint? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCE actually applies to your inability to understand that I'd question the WP:WEIGHT of the referendum and the flag banning, and to your inability to understand that by "harsh requirement" I'm actually referring to other people's proposals.
"Whats the alternative - you add anything you can source, without any constraint?" >> Thanks for demonstrating how a straw man argument works. --Langus (t) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
How is that misrepresenting your position old bean? Thats called speculation as you've never actually stated how you would establish WP:WEIGHT but it is ironically another example of a straw man argument. What I suggest is pretty much a standard on wikipedia. As to the banning of the Falkland Islands flag, which in many cases shouldn't have been included per WP:NOTNEWS but as usual was edit warred into articles despite largely being a none event and on articles where it was irrelevant. Whether the referendum is included rather depends on the result and how its considered in suitable sources - which does include items such as a peer reviewed journal articles. Newspapers remain unsuitable for establishing weight, which is not the strawman you constructed (and something I never suggested) which was to claim all of wikipedia couldn't use them as a source. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
My position can be easily inferred from this comment: we've never needed books or scholar articles to decide relevance; in fact until a month ago you just seemed to trust your guts. As you've been tipped, news and mainstream media are very important for creating/sourcing WP's content. I'm obviously not objecting to using more robust sources as a guide, but ultimately the decision is up to us.
(Note this is different from having no constrains: we have WP:NOT to guide us). --Langus (t) 03:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
In terms of the referendum in particular, I would argue that as a future event that sources obviously haven't caught up with yet, it passes the 10-year test.
The rule is WP:WEIGHT. That's weight in reliable sources about the subject. The important point is not so much whether it's a book or a newspaper report (though this may be used to judge the reliability of the source) - but rather that the source is on the same subject as the article that we're trying to judge appropriate weight on (as opposed to being on the subject of particular statements). And of course, negative results count as much as positive ones.
This discussion has got very confusing in that it is very split up. I suggest we start a new section at the bottom and stick to it. Kahastok talk 19:26, 30 January 2013 (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.
  1. ^ United Press International article EU stays clear of Falkland Islands oil dispute
  2. ^ Article El Gobierno suma datos a su denuncia por la militarización in Argentine newspaper La Nación
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_11&oldid=1136718023"