Jump to content

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

British claim/settlement

The fact that the islands were claimed by the British and settled in them before the Republic of Argentina existed is not redundant. It is one of the most perennial British claims and there are no grounds whatsoever for it not to be listed there. In addition, many of the other points which Argentina and the UK discuss are mentioned elsewhere in the article. It would be unacceptable for me to remove the bullet point in Argentina's claims regarding British withdrawal in 1776; therefore it is unacceptable to remove the bullet point I added. WilliamH (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The previous claim clearly contains this one: "That the British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.". Once again, Wee (not WilliamH who did the right thing and came straight to the Talk page to discuss the issue) forces changes upon the article not caring one bit about consensus. He has now, as a consequence of such unilateral changes, violated the WP:3RR. I will not be reverting his changes again, but I'd appreciate if some other editor reverted to last consensus until the matter is solved. Gaba p (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. The points that they were the first to claim the islands, and that they did so before Argentina's existance are clearly two distinguishable contentions. WilliamH (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Lets leave out the mentin that it was before Argintina's existance (unless an RS makes that specific point).Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue of British involvement in the Falklands before Argentina's existence as a specific point is unlikely to be challenged - it is one of the most mainstream and obvious arguments. Here it is being reiterated by the British ambassador to the UN. Included as a suitable indication of the British government perspective. WilliamH (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
So the answer is yes, it is a British position and so should be included.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I still believe the first claim contains this one, but if Slatersteven backs the edit I won't oppose. Gaba p (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

There is already a reference to the C24 resolutions, the video link is not a good idea as the URL will shortly change when it is archived. It is far better to use a reference a more permanent link as previously. The reference, in my honest opinion, was just a ruse to sneak in recent news reports that offer no new insight.

The other editor noticed a significant ommission and corrected it. It is not currently in the article and should not be removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If anybody cares to check, Wee has recently violated the WP:3RR by repeatedly reverting changes to the article instead of coming to the Talk page first. He needs to have WP:The Last Word always apparently (of course, he accuses me of trying to game the system instead of actually respecting the rules himself)
The reference is to the latest UN decolonization comity resolution not originally added by me by the way. If the issue is its durability fine, I'll check for a more permanent reference. Note however this was not the reason Wee removed it in the first place: "c24 makes same statement annually" & "there is no need to repeat a statement already in the article just because they repeated it". Gaba p (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Also FWIW, WBC does not appear to have broken the 3RR, although he almost certainly will be blocked if he makes another revert. WilliamH (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
And for the record I have no intention of making any further reverts. I only reverted a 3rd time, because Gaba P made no attempt to discuss the matter. The only person to raise this in talk was me. It is clear that Gaba P was edit warring to make a WP:POINT and using 3RR to game the system into forcing his edit into the article - he is well aware of WP:BRD. Given his history of trying to needle me, I would watch out for a WP:PETARD rather than a WP:BOOMERANG. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


Your both sailing clise to an edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I did seize the initiative to bring the matter to the Talk page Dave, you can see it for yourself here. "Lastly, nobody is stopping you from going to 3RR noticeboard to lodge your complaint.", I have no intentions to do so. My chances of winning that argument are slim to none, as was clearly demonstrated after Wee had me blocked a few months ago (even though it was clear there was no case against me) and I had to resort to giving up my right to anonymity to lift it. Wee has many friends (such as yourself) that will vouch for him no matter what he does (and apparently he will reciprocate)
WilliamH yes he has. He made 3 reverts today, check the article's history for yourself.
"Gaba P was edit warring to make a WP:POINT and using 3RR to game the system into forcing his edit into the article", first I don't know what point you think I'm trying to make (looks more like just a random accusation), second I didn't game the 3RR, you on the other hand broke it. Lastly, it wasn't my edit it was another's editor edit which you reverted and I added back.
Wee you can try to intimidate me all you want, you and I both know who is in the wrong here. I'll see about that reference tomorrow. Gaba p (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Making 3 reverts in less than 24 hours is not exactly advisable, but it is not a violation of 3RR. It's the fourth revert which will get you blocked, not the third. WilliamH (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
You are correct WilliamH, it's the fourth revert that will get you blocked. However note that: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." WP:3RR. Also, WP:BRD-NOT and WP:OWN clearly apply here. Gaba p (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:BRD Bold, revert, discuss ie after being reverted you initate a discussion. Upon being reverted you immediately commenced to edit war. I do not normally do more than 2 reverts but on this occasion removing an edit that fixed a glaring omission for a frivolous reason seems more akin to vandalism. You were edit warring to make a point, that much is clear. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD-NOT quote:

  • Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow.

(emphasis added) You reverted the original edit made by BlueSalix and improved by Apcbg saying "rv c24 makes same statement annually". After I added just the reference used in that edit by both those editors back (since you had complained about the statement, I removed it and left the reference only) you again proceeded to revert it. Up until then, you had reverted the same edit twice. I reverted you again asking you to take the matter to the Talk page and one more time (third) you reverted before coming to the Talk page.

Today I added the reference taken directly from the UN press release about the outcome of the last Committee on Decolonization (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gacol3238.doc.htm) and Wee reverted the edit once again saying "rv sneaking recent news in the guise of a reference that isn't needed". How can you argue that a reference to the UN's last decolonization committee with the title "SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION CONSIDERS ‘QUESTION OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)’, HEARS FROM PETITIONERS, ISLAND ASSEMBLYMEN, ARGENTINA’S PRESIDENT" isn't relevant in this article? Having two references, one from 2005 and another from 2012, showing the same statement coming from the UN (ie: resume negotiations) is indicative of a message the Committee is sticking to through time, which in no way can be dismissed as simple "recent news". I ask you to please revert yourself and add back the provided reference. Gaba p (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you to provide a reason justifying inclusion. All I've noted here is bluster and personal attacks. It appears that you are seriously arguing that yet another instance of what is after all an annual call from the C24 is absolutely crucial, but that an unprecedented referendum on precisely the topic of the article is totally irrelevant. I have to say that I find it very difficult to take your points seriously when your bias shows through so clearly in your arguments. Kahastok talk 22:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Kahastok, I've already addressed the three points you mention.
"It's up to you to provide a reason justifying inclusion.", see the comment above yours: "Having two references, one from 2005 and another from 2012, showing the same statement coming from the UN (ie: resume negotiations) is indicative of a message the Committee is sticking to through time, which in no way can be dismissed as simple "recent news"."
"It appears that you are seriously arguing that yet another instance of what is after all an annual call from the C24 is absolutely crucial", I am seriously arguing that the results of a UN committee on decolonization that specifically deals with the Falklands issue is relevant enough to, at least, warrant a reference. Yes Kahastok, I seriously do. Your (and Wee's) dismissive attitude towards the resolutions of an organism as important as the UN is actually what's hard to believe to me.
"an unprecedented referendum on precisely the topic of the article is totally irrelevant", I argue it is not relevant enough to have it's own mention by the same standards the SOA 2012 is but, as I've said: "it will be a perfect reference for the claim that the islanders wish to be/remain British. My position is to add the referendum only once it has passed and as a reference for such claim.". I argue it should be added as a reference for the mentioned claim. The difference with this is that Wee (and apparently you too) are arguing the latest UN resolution on the matter isn't even worth a single reference. Gaba p (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
(PD: I'm sorry you feel I'm biased. I'm really trying to keep a balance on the article from a NPOV.) Gaba p (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not a UN resolution, its a recommendation by the C24 to the IVth Committee, taken without a vote. They make the same statement annually. The IVth Committee has not acted on any recommendation on the issue since 1988. And no you're not trying to create a NPOV, your edits have a distinct POV about them. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Sigh... and once again you've removed an edit introduced & improved by four different editors (BlueSalix, Apcbg, myself, Langus) If you check the last reference of the International Position section you'll see that this exact UN Special Committee press release is quoted from the years 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. How about adding it there, as a 2012 reference? Any objections to that? (What do you say we drop the mutual POV accusations? Neither of us is impressed, we both believe the other has a clear bias so it'll take us nowhere and it can get really tiresome, specially to the other editors) Gaba p (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Asssuming of course in a contentious area of editing BlueSalix an editor with a, let us say, unusual pattern of editing, is not, let us say, completely unrelated to other editors. And ignoring that Apcbg did not introduce that edit. And ignoring that it is the same position, the same committee adopts on annual basis, without taking a vote and ignoring that the committee is dominated by countries sympathetic to Argentina and that the recommendation of that group has been ignored since 1988. And ignoring that I and other editors are accused by both sides of being biased toward the other. Cutting out the unwarranted accusations of bias would be a good start but don't even pretend we are in any way alike. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do note I offered an olive branch and Wee attacked me... again.

I don't even understand what you are accusing BlueSalix of but I guess he/she'll will have something to say about it (Or not. I'd actually advice him/her not to; your history of accusing pretty much everybody who doesn't share your exact view on the matter of POV speaks for itself and calling you out on this unfunded accusation will go nowhere)

Apcbg improved upon that original edit as I said a number of times already, thus accepting it. Of course you are 100% aware of this and are only trying to obscure the fact that 4 editors had agreed on that edit before you came in and unilaterally reverted it.

"And ignoring that it is the same position, the same committee adopts on annual basis, without taking a vote and ignoring that the committee is dominated by countries sympathetic to Argentina and that the recommendation of that group has been ignored since 1988" <-- disregarding an international committee just because it doesn't comply with your own position. I know I'm not the only one to note this is clearly not NPOV.

"I and other editors are accused by both sides of being biased toward the other", if you are referring to your Brickbats template, let me tell you what I see. First I see a message by an anonymous editor calling you a "Fucking Argie Loving Wanker" (god knows where this comes from) right below a comment left in your Talk page by your friend Dave (who you recently defended in an ANI ban request made against him) calling Argentinean soldiers "cowards". How lovely. Second I see an "ignorant propagandist" accusation to an editor by the name Justin (I guess that's you?) by an editor who doesn't exist anymore and which could easily be taken as an accusation of being a propagandist for the UK. So you'll excuse me if I'm not impressed.

"don't even pretend we are in any way alike", I don't Wee. I am actually willing to make a compromise with an aggressive editor for the sake of the article. You apparently won't quit until a fair admin stops by and blocks your account. Your choice I guess.

I actually don't know why I keep asking for your permission as if you owned the article. I think at first I did it just to be polite, but now all I do is reinforce your WP:OWN attitude so I'll stop.

So to anybody else reading: if you check the last reference of the International Position section you'll see that this exact UN Special Committee press release is quoted from the years 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. This edit won't even add a new reference, it will only add the latest to the string already quoted in that single reference. Since I see no reasonable argument as to why the previous 6 press releases should be there but not this last one, I'll go ahead and add the reference. Gaba p (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I stress that this would be an update to a reference, not an introduction of a new one. --Langus (t) 05:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Gaba p, please grow up and stop the attempt to wind me up, it ain't gonna work. There was no olive branch, just more of the same. WP:ANI is resplendent with "friendly admins", you're more than welcome to raise the matter there. Don't forget to mention you're edit warring again. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
"friendly admins", you mean friendly to you I presume? I said fair admin, read carefully the comment one more time please.
I see you finally got tired of trying to find an excuse to remove a valid reference just to prove you own the article. Good. Now as to the edit warring, see new section please. Gaba p (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANI, be sure and include the bad faith accusation against the admins there, thats sure to help your case. I didn't give an excuse, I gave a valid logical reason. You're of course welcome to have the last word. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A major new source: 2012 Overseas Territories White Paper

The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty. The Stationery Office, 2012. 123 pp. ISBN: 9780101837422

Might be useful :-) Best, Apcbg (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over nothing...

Wee has recently reverted two times and edit made by Langus and I saying: "rs quote" and "rs quote again - quit edit warring" (those where his actual explanations as to why he reverted two times the same edit by two different editors, whilst accusing me of edit warring of course) The UK claim being referenced is this: "That in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances, preferring to remain British.". The reference Wee is fighting to keep quotes a huge section of the article which does not mention anywhere the 87% fact and only mentions in the last part of the last sentence the fact that the islanders voted "preferring to remain British". This is the quote Wee is edit-warring to keep in the reference:

This is the quote I hereby propose as a middle ground given that it mentions both facts and it's not half the article:

There is nothing wrong with the existing quotation. And there is more reason to including this quote than you suggest. It includes a whole raft of information, for example the UK policy of independence upon request, a policy in place since the 1960s, and that they wish to retain the connection with the UK. And quit the name calling, this isn't a school playground. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The compromise wuld not be a qoute forom the source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Also I thinik this refers to the section about the UN resolution ignori9ng the Islanders wishes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I only quoted from the source because Wee doesn't want just a reference pointing to the article, he also wants a quote (I'm not against a reference to the article with no quotes) Also, how could I quote from a different article? I think I'm not understanding what you mean by "The compromise wuld not be a qoute forom the source.", could you explain that sentence a bit more please?
Again, the UK claim being referenced is this: "That in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances, preferring to remain British.". How is my quotation wrong when it mentions the whole claim (almost verbatim)? And how is Wee's quote better given that it's enormous and even so it fails to address the 87% point? Gaba p (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, the quote is there to reference more than one point. Not just the poll. It is referred to, twice. Wee Curry Monster talk

Ok I see the second claim being referenced is this: "That UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future.". This makes the current quote even less appropriate since (aside from being huge) it doesn't fully address the first claim and doesn't address at all the second claim. So I propose this quote for the first claim:


and this quote for the second:


This way both claims would be more accurately referenced with smaller and more precise quotes. Gaba p (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Right now the quotation has no relation with the actual use of the source in the article, constituting therefore just a political WP:SOAPBOX speech. But do as you like. --Langus (t) 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The quote is directly related to the use of the source in the article, its not WP:SOAPBOX speech ie a vehicle for propaganda. How many c24 resolutions is referenced? What was that about "Double standards"? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Your comment makes no sense whatsoever Wee. No one is talking about removing any quote or reference (as you intended to do with the latest UN committee press release and actually did with the SOA 2012 mention), I'm simply trying to improve the current quote by making it more accurate. As I said, right now it fails to address half of the first claim and 100% of the second. There's no logical reason not to correct that so I'll go ahead and do it. Gaba p (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
No correction is needed, it addresses the claim made and you should not be removing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Fine, rather than leaving details to the citation, they're now explicitly in the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This has now (as far as I can see) been resovled.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it has been resolved Slatersteven. If you check the article you'll see that Wee, in his determination to keep that enormous and irrelevant quote, has repeated an entire reference+quote and split a single claim in two. I wonder what would Wee had said if any other editor had repeated a reference or a whole claim just to make a WP:POINT. I made a new edit to try to correct the repetition of reference+quote and the irrelevant splitting of a single claim. Please tell me what you think. Gaba p (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It was resolved and your edit once again removes relevant information. Whilst previously I was content to see this subsumed in the reference, it also seems you are hell bent on removing and suppressing this information. Your edits are always about promoting, in your words the "Argentine POV" and equally you remove relevant information on the British position.
You've removed from the article:
ie you remove the British rebuttal of the stated Argentine position that the islanders do not have a basic human right conferred by the UN Charter. And you've removed:
You've removed text relating to the fact that the British position is to willingly grant independence to its overseas territories. And that Britain allows them to choose their own future. This is clearly relevant to this article and should be re-instated. I am asking you to self-revert and explain why this information cannot be given to our readers. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


Didn't have the chance to self-revert nothing since Apcbg already reverted my edits. This is the claims, references and quotes you (and Apcbg) want the article to show:

  • That UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future[63]
  • The Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination[64] and the UK Government will not enter into negotiations on sovereignty without their consent[63].

quote [63] (repeated) says: "Although the United Nations General Assembly has not debated the question of the Falklands since 1988, the Committee of Twenty-four has continued to adopt resolutions calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina. These resolutions are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future. Several members of the Committee have acknowledged this omission. The principle of self-determination is included in every other resolution considered by the Committee. The British position that sovereignty is not for negotiation remains unaltered. There will be no change in the status of the Falklands without the Islanders' consent."

quote [64] says: "The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement. The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early nineteenth century. Britain is committed to defend their right to choose their own future. The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Self-determination does not necessarily mean independence. Britain has willingly granted independence where it has been requested, and will continue to do so where it is an option, while remaining committed to those of its Overseas Territories which choose to retain the British connection. In exercise of their right of self-determination, the Falkland Islanders have repeatedly made known their wish to remain British."

First, I object to the repetition of quote [63] which is 100% unnecessary. Second I object to the length of both quotes but specially that of quote [64], which should only be there to reference the claim "The Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination" and this can be done in a much simpler way.

I propose to merge both claims which are actually just one claim, into:

  • That the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination [63] which makes the UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future".[64]

where quote [63] reads: "The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

and quote [64]: "(...) the Committee of Twenty-four has continued to adopt resolutions calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina. These resolutions are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."

There is no need for such huge quotes when the readers can easily go the the referenced article and read it whole if they so wish to. My statement of UK's claim is much less convoluted than Wee's split-statement and it makes no use of a repeated reference. Even more, both the quotes I propose fully address the claims being mentioned while maintaining a reasonable size. And in no way am I promoting an Argentina POV (where in god's name do you see that in my edits??)

"You've removed text relating to the fact that the British position is to willingly grant independence to its overseas territories. And that Britain allows them to choose their own future. ", the section deals with British claims. What you state are not British claims but British positions on the matter and are completely irrelevant in regards to the claims being referenced. The quotes I propose are much smaller and address both statements in full without going into lengthy details. Gaba p (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Quote 63 is not repeated, its a named reference used twice. Your premise is based on a flawed an incorrect appreciation of how the article referencing system operates. And the wall of argumentative text is not helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Sigh... the attacks aren't helpful Wee, could you please drop it? Did you read my comment? It's pretty small, it looks big because I wrote your quotes and mine but the premise is simple enough to understand. Could you read it and comment on the points made instead of dismissing it entirely?
You're so utterly convinced I'm editing from an "Argentina POV" that you don't realize your way of phrasing the UK claim is confusing and convoluted and only makes it harder for readers of the article to understand the British position. Since Apcbg and you agreed on the current state of the article I won't oppose unless another editor agrees that my editing is better.
Slatersteven I would very much like to hear your comments on this. Gaba p (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no prblom with the merge, it does seem to be more or less the same, point made twice. I cannot see quote 63 used twicwe eitehr, so not sure what the issue is. Quote 64 is far too long and does need trimmiing. As long as Gaba's quotes are accurate I prefer his version at time.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is he removes the FCO comment on the Argentine claim that self-determination doesn't apply and he also removes the British position on the granting of independence to overseas territories. Its removing significant information and that why I and others have objected. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
"he removes the FCO comment on the Argentine claim that self-determination doesn't apply", that claim is already listed as one of Argentina's claims in the Claims by Argentina section. There is no need to repeat it here.
"he also removes the British position on the granting of independence to overseas territories", we're editing the British claims section and thus we list and reference British claims. You are quoting a British political position: "Britain has willingly granted independence where it has been requested, and will continue to do so where it is an option, while remaining committed to those of its Overseas Territories which choose to retain the British connection.", which has nothing to do with the claim being referenced. If you want to include the British statement that they are willing to "grant independence to overseas territories where it has been requested and it is an option", it would have to be somewhere in the article and we should also mention the fact that out of the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories territories (non-decolonized territories) listed by the UN, 10 are under the administration of the UK.
So far Langus, Slatersteven and I are in favor, and Wee and Apcbg oppose. I now trust I've addressed Wee's concern of "removing significant information" in full. So can I reinstate my edit without having to worry about an edit-war? Gaba p (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the offerd text does still mention that the UK rejects argintinas comments abut self determination "*That the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination [63] which makes the UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future".[64]" and note [64]"(...) the Committee of Twenty-four has continued to adopt resolutions calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina. These resolutions are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."I see that mentioning it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well since Wee's and 89's edit war has led to a 1-week full lock down on the article, I guess I'll have to wait until the protection is lifted to make the edit. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a consensus yet.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You are right, I'll wait to hear what Wee and Apcbg have to say. Gaba p (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism isn't edit warring, even if the admin can't see that the editing was done in bad faith, do you think you could stop with the needling? I would disagree with the proposed edit anyway. You're continuing to be disingenuous in addressing my comments. The material wouldn't be duplicated, you're removing why the FCO considers the Argentine Government is wrong. You're not addressing my concerns in the slightest, you're misrepresenting them. If you continue to introduce material without consensus you're as bad as any vandal. Work up an edit in a sandpit first. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This thread became confusing after Gaba p's wall of text of 15:24, 21 June 2012 (and I'd incidentally encourage all editors not to write such long comments as they can be seen as disruptive). Gaba, since you're talking about making "the edit", could you please present a proposal. That is, please tell us exactly what "the edit" that you would like to make is. Please avoid making personal remarks when doing this. Thanks, Kahastok talk 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My impression, too. Apcbg (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Kahastok, I presented the proposal in my "wall of text" (which turned out so big because I presented Wee's proposed huge quotes too, in an attempt to make my comment balanced and fair; I guess it was a bad idea) Slatersteven also mentioned my proposed edit in his comment above, but here it goes again:
  • That the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination [63] which makes the UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future".[64]
where quote [63] reads: "The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
and quote [64]: "(...) the Committee of Twenty-four has continued to adopt resolutions calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina. These resolutions are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."
You can read my comments above as to why I believe this is a better way of phrasing that claim than the current split-statement and why I believe the quotes are also preferable (I won't repeat them so as not to make this comment too long)
Wee, I think I'll just stop responding to you entirely. You've voiced your concerns, I've addressed them fully. Enough. Gaba p (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You don't respond to me, you usually try and twist what I have to say into a pretzel. As you just did here. You haven't addressed my concerns and I don't accept your proposed edit for the reasons stated. Ignoring what I have to say won't make me go away. Consensus is about collaboration, it isn't about snide remarks and point scoring as you clearly seem to think. If you continue in the same way, you'll get nowhere. Previously I was happy to have a whole host of points summarised in the quote, if you're planning on removing some of that information it'll need to go back into the article. I made a polite suggestion to suggest an edit in a sandpit, if you don't want to do that fine. But quit the walls of text please and the personal remarks it is getting old. You've been given a chance you didn't deserve Alex, don't blow it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't really help, because you don't mention where you want it to go. It is difficult to judge the merits of including any point without knowing where it is supposed to be going, because points that may be entirely appropriate in some places may be entirely inappropriate in others.
You also imply that you want to replace some things with other things. I would like to know the entire edit: what you intend to remove as well as what you intend to add. If you feel that this is going to be very long, you can collapse the two texts.
I do have a comment, however, and that is that the comment about "General Assembly resolutions" is not backed up by the quote, which only refers to "the Committee of Twenty-four". Clearly, we must distinguish the two bodies. I could not support the edit as proposed because the quotes provided do not back up the points made. Kahastok talk 20:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You are correct Kahastok, the current quote is missing a mention to the "General Assembly resolutions"; I've added that mention to my proposed change. You can see the whole history here and hopefully it will be easier to understand and follow. Gaba p (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Kahastok comment made me realize the claim was incorrect. The reference doesn't say that the UN General Assembly resolutions are flawed but that the Special Committee on Decolonization resolutions are. I added this to my proposed edit. Gaba p (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You appear to proposing that we remove the point that the British government refuse to negotiate without the consent of the FIG. This point is pretty critical: we need to let our readers understand the basis on which the British refuse offers to negotiate. There's a specific rationale here, and whether you agree with it or not it should be included. If it was missing before, then it needed to be added before. And I certainly cannot support any position that does not include it. Kahastok talk 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
"That the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination" how is that not saying that the British government says they have a right to elf-determination?Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
If we're describing people calling for negotiations between the British and Argentine governments, neutrality requires that we explain why the British government opposes them. While the British evidently feel that their position (no negotiations without the islanders' consent) follows from the principle of self-determination, that connection is not going to be so obvious to the lay reader that they'll think of it without prompting. So we need a statement putting the point explicitly. Kahastok talk 20:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
"where quote [63] reads: "The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.""and quote [64]: (...) the Committee of Twenty-four has continued to adopt resolutions calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina. These resolutions are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future." I fail to see howthis does not explan thatSlatersteven (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Our compliance with this policy should not rely on a quote in a footnote that most of our readers aren't even going to look at. We spend a long time discussing those who want negotiations, but nowhere else in the text of the article do we explain why the British don't accept it. The point needs to be in the text of the article. If we're relying on the footnote for neutrality in this matter, then we don't have neutrality in this matter. I also note that those quotes still rely on our inferring the point, which we shouldn't have to do. Kahastok talk 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
"which makes the UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future"." is already in the text susgested, in fact all that is removed is the mdention of the commitie of 24 (not needed to undertsand britians possition) and the following "and the UK Government will not enter into negotiations on sovereignty without their consent.". So are you saying that we need this one line of text to make clear that the UK is not willing to negotiated (which is in effect hat it says)?Slatersteven (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok I'm not getting your point. The proposed claim explicitly mentions the connection between the British position and the right to self-determination: That the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination [4] which makes the Special Committee on Decolonization resolutions calling for negotiations "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future".[5]. How does this require any inferring? Why don't you add to my sandbox your proposed edit so we can see what changes you feel would be necessary? Gaba p (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(I reverted to the claim's original state until a consensus is reached) Gaba p (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see exactly what he means, the article currently makes the position plain. With your proposal it has to be synthesised by the reader connecting two separate pieces of information. It doesn't make it explicit, its implicit. At the moment we leave a lot of the details of the British position to the footnotes, if you're serious about trimming down those details, then they should be moved to the text. If you don't like the use of footnotes, then rather than tinkering the whole section needs a rewrite. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The section deals with the British claims and the claim being referenced is a clear one: the UK says the islanders have the right to self-determination and that the C24 resolutions are flawed. Period. That is the claim. The rest of the details are just that: details. They shouldn't even be mentioned in the quote, the details are left for the reference. The quotes should only mention the point being addressed, not all the details you think should, for some reason, appear in the article. Details should not be moved to the text because they are details not claims. The claim is already explicitly expressed beyond any doubt: the islanders have the right to self-determination and the UK believes the C24 calls for negotiations are flawed. Anything beyond that is filling.
It appears you and Kahastok would like to add the sentence "the UK Government will not enter into negotiations on sovereignty without their consent". How is this a claim? This is a political position regarding the claim that the islanders have the right to self-determination. I don't know how I can be any more clear. What two pieces of information need connection? Gaba p (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
And you are being evasive and disingenuous, there is more to the British position than that. I don't know what anyone else thinks but it seems to me you're applying an overly narrow and semantic approach to presenting the British position. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
"And you are being evasive and disingenuous" <-- just remember who started the attacks Wee, ok?
I understand there is much more to the British position, just like there is much more to the Argentina position than what's currently stated in the section. What I'm trying to do is not an overly narrow and semantic approach but a synthetic approach. We can't spend half the article commenting on all the details of the British and Argentine government and why they think the other government is wrong. We need to be as neutral and as synthetic as we can so this doesn't turn into an endless essay. Gaba p (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Its not an attack, its a comment on your proposal OK?
Your reply is on a complete tangent to my comments, I made no comment on the rebuttal of the Argentine Government by the British Government. I was concerned at the information removed, which explains why the British will not enter into negotiations with the Argentine government. Neutrality doesn't require that we miss out large chunks of the British position now does it? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
What specific part of the British position you feel the article is missing? Please be as specific as possible so we can start discussing real statements. Gaba p (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Given that I have explained myself on several occasions, it is probably easier if you were to identify what it is you don't understand. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have explained myself many times too Wee, I even took the effort to put the whole thing in my sandbox (apparently for nothing since no one ever made use of it) I can't believe the length this discussion has reached over such a minor and obvious improvement.

You've said this needs to be explicitly said regarding a political position by the UK and I've responded that this is the claims section and so this political position doesn't belong here. Do we agree on this?

You've also said Neutrality doesn't require that we miss out large chunks of the British position. I've explained that if you want to include more information regarding the British claim (although I'm not sure What specific part of the British position you feel the article is missing?, which is what I asked), I'm all for it. But we would have to expand the Argentinian section too to keep the article balanced, do you agree? Gaba p (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean and never has meant trying to artificially match arguments point for point, much as you might like it to in this case. It means putting the facts and relevant opinions (appropriately couched as such) from a neutral perspective. The fact that the British section currently fails to adequately and neutrally cover the British does not mean that we are allowed, let alone required, to add things to the Argentine section that do not stand on their own merits.
Your argument about "claims" versus "political position" is purely semantic. It does not come close to being a good reason for us to ignore core policy such as WP:NPOV. This article puts the calls for negotiations but fails to explain why the British do not negotiate unless we expect the reader to infer several logical leaps that do not necessarily fail. This biases the article, and that bias needs to be fixed. Your proposal fails to fix it - indeed, you refuse to accept any statement that resolves the bias, apparently without biasing the article in another way. I must oppose it on that basis. Kahastok talk 21:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I never said neutrality meant having to "artificially match arguments" or anything of that sort. I said that if we were to expand the British claims section adding more of the UK's political position on the issue, then the Argentinian claims section should be expanded too in a similar way to maintain a balance. "add things to the Argentine section that do not stand on their own merits", I don't know why you think I would add such things. I certainly never implied it.
If by "semantic argument" you are referring to the "the UK Government will not enter into negotiations on sovereignty without their consent" sentence I object to, there's two points I'd like to make. First: what the UK will or will not do under X circumstance is in no way a British claim, it's a political position. This is not semantics, it's grammar. Second: my proposed edit explains clear as day why the British won't negotiate. In any case, please go check my sandbox, where I've added in quote [5] the specific part where it says that "There will be no change in the status of the Falklands without the Islanders' consent". So now it explicitly says so in the quote.
If you have a proposed edit, it'd be great if you could add it to my sandbox so we could compare all proposed changes. Gaba p (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

You can't have it both ways. If you're arguing that any addition of any point to discussion of one side must be "balanced" by an expansion of discussion of the other, then you're arguing that we should be adding points that don't stand on their own merits. You can't argue the first without arguing the second. The latter points, added for "balance", are not standing on their own merits, they're standing on the merits of a totally unrelated point in an entirely separate part of the article. Neutrality most emphatically does not work like that.
You then try to draw a distinction between semantic points and grammatical points. I could describe why you are wrong there - but there is no point because that too is a purely semantic argument. It too fails to address the basic issue that we are not covering this point neutrally. I don't know if you read every single footnote and reference when you read articles, but I very much doubt most of our readers do. Relying on the contents of a footnote for neutrality in this, given that the point about calls for negotiations is made repeatedly in the main text, would be insufficient even if your footnote did in fact explicitly make the point as you claim (it does not).
We've already had a perfectly good edit on this page. The position here resolved the point perfectly satisfactorily. Kahastok talk 18:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
"you're arguing that we should be adding points that don't stand on their own merits", well you're now just making stuff up. I never said anything like that. Just as there are more details to the British claim, there also are more details to the Argentinian claim. True bonafide details. If we decide to expand the British section with more details, like I've said I'm all for it; as long as the Argentinian section is expanded with more actual, true details to keep a balance in both sections length. I just can not be any more clear than this.
"we are not covering this point neutrally", since when are we not covering this point neutrally? You do realize that the current edit is what Wee wanted to keep and that his edit (which you refer to as "a perfectly good edit") was only added by him after removing mine to make a WP:POINT, right? The current edit, which you call not neutral and insufficient (with that humongous quote) was the edit Wee actually wanted to keep and he defended it on several occasions.
I take it you do not have any proposed edit and are just backing up Wee's edit. Well, I oppose it. My edit is far better. This is why:
  • It addresses all the necessary points both in the actual statement and in the quotes.
  • Wee's edit is a split-statement with unnecessarily big quotes.
  • Wee's edit takes a political position (ie: and the UK Government will not enter into negotiations on sovereignty without their consent) and adds it as a claim. A claim for what if I may ask?
  • Not only is the previous sentence a political statement, it is explicitly added to the 2nd quote of my edit.
  • If we say that the UK upholds the islanders right to self-determination and that it thinks the C24 resolutions calling for negotiation are flawed since they don't address this right (ie: my edit), then it follows directly that the UK will not negotiate without the islanders consent. This position by the UK doesn't need to be added verbatim to the claim since it's already expressed by the claim itself. The position and the claim are the same thing. Gaba p (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe earlier on you used the phrase "just remember who started the attacks". In our discussion, that would be you. The accusation "well you're now just making stuff up" is a personal attack and I ask you to please withdraw it.
Now let me take your bullet points:
  • First point is false. It does not address all the necessary points because it fails to explain why the British do not accept calls by organisations other than the C24 (in your proposal) or the General Assembly (in the current text, which you restored full in the knowledge that it is inaccurate in implication). It does not do this in either the quotes or the text. It needs to do it in the text.
  • Second point is irrelevant. If it works better as two points, it should go in as two points. The point does not address the fact that the current text is biased.
  • Third point is purely semantic and does not even come close to overcoming the fact that both the current text and your proposal fail basic policy.
  • Fourth point is factually incorrect. The point is not made, explicitly or implicitly, by any part of your proposal. I would have thought the difference between negotiations and "change in status" would be blindingly obvious, but apparently not.
  • Fifth point, you're saying that the reader should be forced to synthesise this point rather than just saying it outright. And in the next post you denied you were doing that. You can't have both because they're the opposite of one another. And that's not how this works.
You say, "I never said anything like that", and personally attacked me, when I pointed out that you're trying to get things in the article that don't stand on their own merits. Then you immediately go on to say that we should do exactly that. If the sole reason we're adding bits to the Argentine section is because we added bits to the British section - if the bits added to the Argentine section are only there because we added bits to the British section - then by definition those bits added to the Argentine section are not standing on their own merit. They wouldn't be there if it wasn't for some other text in another part of the article completely that has nothing to do with the text added. As I say, neutrality simply does not work like that.
And perhaps I should point out that I am not Curry Monster and I make up my own mind when it comes to these things. Even if I accepted that all of your accusations against him were completely accurate, it would not make an iota of difference so far as I'm concerned. Launching into a raft of accusations achieves nothing except make consensus involving you harder both now and in the future. Kahastok talk 17:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
But you did make stuff up, I never implied what you are trying to pin on me. Your argument makes no sense, you don't even know the information I'm going to add and you've already branded it as "not standing on their own merit". That's making stuff up. Also, read my latest comment, I'll be adding information to the Argentinian claim regardless of whether this political position by the UK is added to the article or not. Argentina's claim section is 5 times smaller compared to the British one and it's not because there aren't enough details to the Argentinian claim. It's because the article is slanted.
"fails to explain why the British do not accept calls by organisations other than the C24", I've said this a number of times already: add this statement to the intro of the British claim section if you feel it has to be said. This is not a claim, it's a political position and so it doesn't belong in the claims bullet-points. You know what, I'll just do it myself. I'll also correct the erroneous General Assembly mention since no one else did.
At this point in the argument there's really no way to advance. I've given all the reasons about why I think my edit is better and the editors Slatersteven and Langus appear to agree with me. You and Wee do not and prefer a different edit. I guess it will stay as it is, I really have no idea how to move this further since there is nothing left to be said. Gaba p (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
You've apparently decided that if you don't understand something properly then that means that I'm making things up - no, it just means you've failed to understand the point. Your text about contains more repeat violations of WP:NPA. Every time you personally attack someone it makes it harder for you to reach consensus - which is what we should all be aiming for - both now and in the future. Your record of issuing personal attacks in this thread and elsewhere is likely to make it significantly harder for you to get consensus for those changes you say you want in the future. Because people will be less willing to help you if you've been abusing them.
You're saying we should add material solely for the purpose of "balance" with something added in a totally separate part of the article In that case it doesn't matter what it is. It's not standing on its own merits. It wouldn't be there if it wasn't for something added elsewhere. Now, if we were talking about a massive increase in length on one side, then there may be a legitimate argument nonetheless that one side is more detailed than the other, biasing the article. But we're not. We're talking about a single bullet point and a central part of Britain's modern arguments.
I actually checked the British and Argentine claims sections are actually (and coincidentally) almost exactly the same length. 586 words and 581. The Argentine section is not five times smaller. It's actually five words longer. By your argument the article is already perfectly "balanced" in this regard. Kahastok talk 08:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Accusing me of not understanding (really?) instead of acknowledging your arguments are invalid since you are making an assessment of the information I'd like to add without even seeing it, is not a way to cooperate. You are just not willing to accept you were wrong.
"Your record of issuing personal attacks", how curious I've never heard you say something like that to Wee when he is by far the editor most involved in fights with another editors and the one with the tendency to accuse everybody (who disagrees with him) of being a sock puppet. Now why is this not a surprise? So far the only editor I've had a problem with is him and sadly, now you.
No Kahastok, the intro to the Claims by Argentina section is 318 characters long and the whole section 1534. Compare that to the current 1666 characters only in the opening of the Claims by the United Kingdom and the 3114 total. The intro is exactly 5.2 times longer. I will be expanding it quite a bit as soon as I have the time, maybe next week. Gaba p (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
As I say, it doesn't matter what the information is. If it's only present because of someone added totally unrelated information to an entirely separate part of the article, then it's not standing on its own merits. By definition. If it was standing on its own merits, the addition of text elsewhere in the article wouldn't be a relevant factor. And we don't add information that doesn't stand on its won merits. I appreciate that you may like this "balance" argument, but it isn't going to wash with me or others.
It is very disappointing that you continue to personally attack me and others. Suffice it to say that if you find it difficult to get consensus here in the future, you only really have yourself to blame.
We should at this stage point out that your suggestion that the two are significantly different in length is factually wrong. Character and word counts both actually indicate that the two sections are the same length to well within 5% (I get 3699 vs. 3871 characters, excluding Wiki markup).
Word count and character count are not the sole determining factors, but even if they were, they would not indicate that there is any problem here.
That said, given your repeated insistence that the two sections must be the same length for "balance", given that they are currently the same length, and given your repeatedly-stated intention to significantly increase the length of the introduction to the Argentine section, please state either:
  • What points you intend to remove from the remainder of the Argentine section, or
  • What points you intend to add to the British section
in order to maintain the balance that you say you seek to maintain here. For you to be consistent with your own previously stated positions you would require one of the two. Kahastok talk 13:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what section you are getting your stats from. Go to the Claims by Argentina section and check the intro (before the claims) and do the same for the Claims by the United Kingdom and you'll see what I'm talking about. There's a difference in a factor of 5 in favor of the British claim. That's where I'll be adding information to Kahastok, and you'll have the time to scrutinize it once I've added it (luckily next week) Gaba p (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
That would be the Argentine claims section and the British claims section. You may not like the fact that they are the same length, but that does not make them not the same length. The introduction to the Argentine one is shorter, but the section is longer in other areas. You're proposing to make the Argentine section significantly longer than the British section, in spite of your own argument that they should be the same length, a clear double standard.
We'll see whether the points you propose to add belong or not. But it is becoming increasingly clear that you're arguing that only new additions to the British section need to be "balanced". Not new additions to the Argentine section. Kahastok talk 17:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
No Kahastok, I'm arguing both sections need to be balanced, that's why I'll be adding more information to the intro of the Claims by Argentina (currently almost empty) I'll also try to re-write the Nootka convention section, right now it's so vague that it makes one wonder why is it even in the Claims by Argentina section. As I've said, you have no idea of the changes I'll be producing but yet have already branded them as not standing on its own merits and me as having a double standard. Who's making personal attacks again?
Please stop responding here and go to the end of the section to address the actual discussion so we can settle this. Gaba p (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Except of course that the two sections are already the same length. Your own argument is that you can't make the British section even insignificantly longer without making the Argentine section longer. You're now proposing to make the Argentine section significantly longer. What are you going to add to the British section to maintain your balance? What are you going to remove from the Argentine section to maintain your balance?
Personal attacks? Well quite a lot of your comment was personal attacks. I've been trying to avoid going in that direction, but after you plunged in and started issuing repeated personal attacks against me, well, I don't think you can expect me to act much differently from how I have.
Yes, double standards. Saying that any insignificant increase in length in the British section has to be balanced by increase in the Argentine section, but that you can significantly increase the length of the Argentine section without changing the length of the British section, is a clear and obvious double standard. Pretty much by definition, it is POV editing. If you don't like being called on your double standards, I suggest you try to avoid them.
Pointing out that a text does not stand on its merits, where the only reason that the text is being added that someone added something unrelated to a totally separate part of the article, is not a personal attack. It's a statement of the obvious, but there is no personal element to it at all. I did not say that your text would not stand on its own merits regardless of what it was (the opposite: in my last message I said that we'd see). But there has to be a good reason to add them, on their own merits. If the only reason to add them is because someone added something to some other part of the article, they're not going in on their own merits. Kahastok talk 08:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
"You're now proposing to make the Argentine section significantly longer", no Kahastok I am not. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I propose to add relevant information to the Argentinian claim and to re-write some parts of it like the Nootka convention.
Here's a good example of you making stuff up: "that you can significantly increase the length of the Argentine section without changing the length of the British section". Except I never said that. Again: you don't even know what changes I'll be making and already you are opposing them.
"the only reason that the text is being added that someone added something unrelated to a totally separate part of the article", no the reason I'll be adding text is because there's information that needs to be added. Period.
I never issued a personal attack on you, I simply stated that you were (and still are) making stuff up. You, on the other hand, have accused me of having double standards and of issuing personal attacks. Those are personal attacks.
One more time: Please go to the end of the section to address the actual discussion so we can settle this. Gaba p (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I see you're taking quotes out of context again. That's at least the second time in less than three weeks that you've quoted me out of context, and in both cases the context you supplied is totally different from the context in which the quote was made. It probably signals that I and others need to scrutinise any quotes you cite in the future more closely than we normally would.
You continue to personally attack me by accusing me of "making stuff up". Ironically, you have actually said you're going to increase the article length "quite a bit" in this edit. I repeat: since you insist that both sides must be "balanced" - that even a tiny increase in length must be matched on the other side - how do you intend to extend the British section or reduce the Argentine section such as to "balance" the increase you wish to make? If the answer is none, or if you cannot answer (which is roughly where we seem to be at the moment) then it will be clear that you are applying double standards. Kahastok talk 20:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sigh.. hey Kahastok, how about you actually wait to see the changes I'll make before accusing me of having double standards? Are you really that opposed to have the Argentinian claim fairly represented in the article? Are you really that biased? I will not respond here any more, it's gotten ridiculous. If you want to keep attacking me for an edit I haven't even made yet, that's ok. I also note you don't like being quoted when you aren't making sense; I'll keep that in mind.
I'll go ahead and apply my edit to the article since clearly you've run out of arguments and prefer to waste my time with this pointless attacks than actually going to the end of this section and answering the question I asked. What a shame. Gaba p (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
You're the one repeatedly violating behavioural policy here. The string of personal attacks and accusations in the above message say a lot. Most of it, it has to be said, reflects badly on you.
It's becoming clear that you are reading what you want to read here, rather than what's actually written. For example, despite my having more than once said that I'm reserving judgement on whether your actual text will stand on its own merits, you still insist that I'm saying that it won't. For example, you take a quote where I comment on a general argument that you have made, and write it in such a way that it appears to apply to a specific edit that you may or may not make in the future.
Misrepresenting others' views in this way is not particularly constructive and will significantly damage your chances of getting consensus both now and in the future. Making accusations against me as in your message, similarly, is not constructive and similarly makes it that much harder for us to reach consensus in the future. You always like to go on about who started it getting personal, so let's remember that - as I noted at the time - in this case it was you, when you accused me of making things up. I asked you politely to withdraw the accusation, and you repeated it. I have tried to keep this on topic but it is difficult when the person you're discussing with insists upon abusing you, accusing you of things and misrepresenting you. If you take nothing else from this conversation, please take away the fact that it is easier to get consensus when you follow basic behavioural policy, and try harder to follow it in future. Kahastok talk 22:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Your edit is clearly not better, for the simple reason it provides less information and it has been pointed out to you (by more than one editor) requires the reader to synthesise the British position from two disparate pieces of information. No the two are not the same and for that very reason I would oppose it. If we have your edit, it gives the appearance of a refusal to negotiate but not the reason why. This is not presenting the British position from a neutral perspective, moreover it is presenting an Argentine position from a none-neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"it provides less information", no it doesn't, it provides less minor details since it doesn't make use of humongous quotes. "requires the reader to synthesise the British position from two disparate pieces of information", no it doesn't, the British position is more than clear. "it gives the appearance of a refusal to negotiate but not the reason why", the reason couldn't be more explicitly expressed: self-determination.

"it is presenting an Argentine position from a none-neutral perspective", <--- ???

Wee I can't help but notice that, when this started, you defended the edit that's currently in place. That edit has no mention of the "the UK Government will not enter into negotiations on sovereignty without their consent" part (not even in that enormous quote) yet you defended it because the relevant information (supposedly) was in the quote. Now, I've added this statement to the 2nd quote of my edit but now you feel this needs to be on the statement itself and the quote isn't enough. Don't you see the double standard here? Gaba p (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Argentina cites that the UK refuses to negotiate, omitting the full British position, with the implication that the UK is being unreasonable. The actual position is that the British will only negotiate with the consent of the islanders. You wish to only state part of the British position, effectively an accusation levelled by the Argentine government. I don't believe this to be entirely co-incidental on your part.
I will not lower myself anymore to responding to your personal attacks, please note the comment on your content proposal and respond accordingly. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
First: there is not one single mention on the entire article about how Argentina says/cites that the UK refuses to negotiate. Not one. Not in the article, not in the quotes. Not a single one. Any mention on that matter comes from the UN or similar organizations.
Second: "The actual position is that the British will only negotiate with the consent of the islanders", exactly. This is a position by the UK as you said. A political position. Not a claim. A position. As you said. If you want to include this position in the article, please do. Your comment made me realize how much information the Claims by Argentina section is lacking (a mere ~4 lines of information and background, compared to the ~20 the British section has) so I will be expanding it as soon as I have the time, whether you add this position to the British claim section or not.
Lastly: just because you have no justification for your sudden changes of mind regarding the guidelines the article should follow, doesn't make that fact go away. Your recommendations tend to vary wildly depending on which one will benefit your position the most. This is really sad for a supposed established editor. Gaba p (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Wee's edit takes a political position (ie: and the UK Government will not enter into negotiations on sovereignty without their consent) and adds it as a claim. A claim for what if I may ask?" --> good point there. That is not a claim. --Langus (t) 22:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is quite astonishing that you two seem to think that a purely semantic argument such as this takes precedence over a basic policy requirement. It doesn't. Never has. Never will. If you are not willing to help address such clear bias in this article then one does have to wonder what you're here for. This should be about making the article better. Not about finding excuses not to. Kahastok talk 23:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
First. No the article doesn't say that. You're trying to put that into the article by removing elements from the section describing the British position. This is a straw man argument attempting to derail the central point.
Second. Semantic nonsense, if you intend on expanding the "Argentine" section, then you will of course present the Argentine position from a neutral perspective and not the "Argentine POV" you often refer to? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Wee and Kahastok: check the article, I've added the British position to the intro section of the British claim. Is this enough? It's explicitly there in the article now. Can we move on with the bullet-point now? (I won't address both your attacks on me: irrelevant and a waste of time) Gaba p (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have time now so I'll address you attacks just for the sake of completeness:
"one does have to wonder what you're here for", I could ask the same question Kahastok. Let's not go down that road.
"you will of course present the Argentine position from a neutral perspective and not the "Argentine POV" you often refer to?" <-- ??? Care to explain what this means Wee? Or are you just resourcing to plain lies now instead of your usual hit-and-run troll tactics? Gaba p (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
@Kahastok: it is not a claim and the edit proposed to include it in a bullet list of claims. That's all I said. It doesn't look like an improvement to me.
I add that your accusation of POV editing is equally astonishing to me, since you're usually a cool-headed editor. It also surprises me because you tend to be very careful in small details like this one. --Langus (t) 03:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
You don't think correcting bias is an improvement? That's what all this is about. I don't care where the bias came from, it needs fixing. Some of us just want to fix it. Others are arguing that we should maintain the bias version for purely semantic reasons, or that if we do fix it we then have to artificially match it point-for-point on the other side. And frankly, I very much doubt that those same arguments would be being made by those people if the missing material were an Argentine position instead of a British one.
If the wording's wrong, we can fix the wording. It's not a good reason to maintain a biased article. If there's important stuff on either side that's missing, it can be added - but the justification should be on the point's own merits, not because someone added a totally unconnected point to a different part of the article. Kahastok talk 08:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the vagueness, let's talk about real changes again please. Since that position by the UK is now explicitly said in the article, is there anything else preventing you from supporting my edit Kahastok? Please be a specific as possible. Adding your own proposed edit to my sandbox, if you don't agree with mine, would be ideal. Gaba p (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Wee and Kahastok have stopped responding here but not in the rest of the page (despite my several requests to Kahastok to please address the matter), I'll take that as an implicit acknowledgement that they have no further issues with my edit so I've applied it. Gaba p (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't respond as you simply repeat the same position ad nauseum, which is not acquiesence on my part. I object, I've outlined why, you have provided no argument to change my mind. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't simply repeat the position Wee, I actually added the position that you claimed needed to be said, into the article. It's explicitly there now. Please be specific as to what information is my edit exactly removing now that the disputed sentence is already in the article. Gaba p (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

1806 withdrawal

Ok, a really late reply :)

First of all, as a side comment, I don't believe that Moreno would have falsified anything. The man had high moral standards, he was one of the most admirable heroes of Argentine history. Of course a man has to do what he has to do, but in order to believe you I would need to know where you are getting this idea from.

Now to the point, Laurio Destefani makes a detailed account of the Spanish period, with number of colonists, houses, cattle, etc. at various points, as well shorts accounts of the lives of prominent Spanish governors.

Some interesting points I've found there:

  • 20 Spanish governors ruled on the islands, all of them naval officers except for the second one (Domingo de Chauri) who was an Army officer. Two of them were born in Buenos Aires and one of them was from Montevideo ('criollos').
  • Two priest always joined them: the first ones were Franciscans, then they were replaced for Mercedarians, and after 1793, seculars.
  • These governors depended on the Governor of Buenos Aires or the Viceroy of the Río de la Plata.
  • On August 9 1776 it was created the Apostadero de Montevideo, or Montevideo station. The islands were supplied from that station.
  • Every summer an expedition of one or more ships sailed from Montevideo to the Falklands to supply the settlement and relieving the personnel.
  • Governors received orders to inspect the remains of Port Egmont once a year, to prevent British re-settlement. They always found British and American sealers and whalers.
  • The islands were a prison colony, with 30 or more prisoners during most of this period. The prison was created in 1780. The civilians had been evacuated (it doesn't mention exactly when) leaving only military officers and soldiers, prisoners and support personnel.
  • There were 3 artillery batteries and a small battery at the docks, although by 1801 these were largely unusable. A frigate or similar ship was always present at the islands, relieved yearly.
  • Circa 1774-1777 there was 395 cattle on the islands; in 1788 there was 2,180; in 1792, 3,460; in 1798, the numbers descended to 1,567.
  • Actions were taken against sealers circa 1794, although they were treated with moderation because the British were at that time allied in the war against France.
  • Gerardo Bordas and Pablo Guillén were the last governors of the islands. Pablo Guillén arrived on 8 January 1810, and on 13 or 14 February 1811 he evacuated the garrison of 46 men in the ship Galvez commanded by Manuel Moreno and sent by the government in Montevideo. He left a plaque on the chapel with the inscription: "Esta isla con sus Puertos, Edificios, Dependencias, y quanto contiene pertenece a la Soberanía del Sr. D. Fernando VII Rey de España y sus Indias. Soledad de Malvinas 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén." This inscription was also placed the 30 or so buildings, and an act was signed by Governor Guillén, Captain Manuel Moreno and the bishop Juan Canosa, dated 13 February 1811.

About this last point, Goebel briefly says that on January 8, 1811, the Junta in Montevideo decided to dismantle the colony and ordered to evacuate the settlers left, and that these facts were communicated to Viceroy D. Javier de Elio on 18 March, 1811. --Langus (t) 11:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Langus, approaching this from a perspective that the Argentine source is unimpeachable and Moreno as a paragon of virtue and therefore never told a porky is from a pre-determined viewpoint. There wasn't a Governor present in 1811, the last Governor was removed in 1807.

Whilst Destefani has some virtue in that he refuses to laud Rivero as a hero, he wasn't, that document was produced as propaganda by the military junta in 1982 and I take it with a large pinch of salt. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

WOW, are you saying that all those figures and names are made out of thin air? How about Goebel?
I remind you BTW that WP:NPOV requires us to highlight events from every POV (not fringe theories, of course). --Langus (t) 22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
WOW does not demonstrate good faith does it? Another little dig.
Montevideo - Did you note by the way that the penal colony of Puerto Soledad was governed from Montevideo. Under the doctrine of Utis Possidetis Juris of 1810, who would have the stronger claim Uruguay or Argentina?
And no I am not saying those figures and names were plucked out of thin air, though like a lot of Argentine histories certain facts are embroidered. For instance, the last Governor left in 1807, Gerado Bordas was not a governor but a civilian pilot for ships entering Puerto Soledad. And btw Pablo Guillén Martinez (you got the name wrong) was not a governor but the civlian pilot who replaced Bordas.
Do you have a copy of Goebel btw?
Finally I remind you btw that WP:NPOV doesn't mean presenting propaganda as WP:FACT. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"WOW" shows surprise. I'm surprised because you disregard Destefani as "propaganda" and yet you have used it before to back your statements. I'm surprised because it never seems to bother you when P&P's counter-pamphlet is used as the ultimate truth on Falkands' misteries (i.e. you seem to consider it 'unimpeachable'), even when it is clearly is the spearhead of British POV, even when none of them has worked on history before (unlike Destefani, who's been studying naval history since the 1960's)[1][2] and even when none of them have any degree in History (again, unlike Destefani). A work that it is not even a book, and that uses Destefani as a reference. That's the reason I'm amazed. It has nothing to do with bad faith: I honestly think you don't do it on purpose. It just amazes me that you can't see it.
Anyway, back to the point, you asked "What supporting cites exist to support the claim troops didn't leave till 1811". Was it a rhetorical question? Yes, I do own Goebel and it says exactly that, citing Independencia de América (1912), by Torres Lanza, which is a compilation of Spanish documents of that time.[3] Do you own Cakewell? Can you quote her account of the withdrawal? Does she cite her source? --Langus (t) 03:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
[4] You'll note that as with all sources I seek second opinion when in doubt and I am careful to use Destefani to cite only uncontroversial topics. Further I don't use Pepper and Pascoe as the ultimate truth, I tend to rely on other sources such as Mary Cawkell an acknowledged expert on Falklands history. I have a very simple test for books, I look in the bibliography. Cawkell, as well as Pepper and Pascoe, cite both primary and secondary sources on both sides of the dispute. My question was not entirely rhetorical, I was going to ask if you'd looked at all at the sources he cites. Goebel relies extensively on Spanish language sources in archive form as WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources but only secondary sources in the English language. Goebel was also heavily influenced by one Paul Groussac, who I imagine you've heard of. Yes I do own Cawkell, the source appears to be Caillet-Bois, Ricardo (1948) Las Islas Malvinas, Buenos Aires.
And if you own Destefani, take a look at p.135 and note the qualifications of Bordas and Martinez.
BTW looking further at the sources I have available, David and Novi, indicate that Bondas brought fresh troops in the Brig Nuestra Señora de Belén. Also noted is that the garrison left with Bonavia. It seems that Cawkell was correct and wrong (or I will admit I have misunderstood) in that the garrison was replaced. But they're from Tatham who from past experience you'll object to as being a suitable source.
I notice by the by, that you avoided answering the question posed, any particular reason?
BTW I ignored your blatant bad faith accusation of bias, quit it, its getting old. Have you heard of Projection bias? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's a snippet to Callet-Bois' work in which you can clearly read "the last Governor of the islands was Don Pablo Guillén, officer of the Real Armada. According to the last investigations, the date of departure was 13 February 1811". Could you quote Cakewell? Perhaps we are misunderstanding her words.
To add, here you can see additional snippets from L.Destefani but from a 1981 work, Las Malvinas en la época hispana (1600-1811). The firsts snippets (p. 379 and 380) look like a transcription of the orders received by Captain Moreno, and the last one (p.381) looks like the act signed on departure. Destefani cites both Callet-Bois and E.Fitte. Here you can read a summary on Fitte's Cronología marítima de las Malvinas (1968), roughly: "historical naval account of the travels to those islands, from the first effective occupation by Bougainville, in 1763, to the abandonment by the Governor Pablo Guillén, in 1811. [...] It is based on documentation from the Archivo General de Indias (Sevilla) and the Archivo General de la Nacion (Buenos Aires)." Also there, right below, there's a summary to another work by Destefani, La evacuación española de las islas Malvinas (1968) ("Spanish evacuation of the FI"), and it says it makes a "special reference to the last Spanish Governor, Pablo Guillén, analyzing his activities as naval officer and in Montevideo, to finish analyzing the significance of the inscription he was ordered to left in Puerto Soledad. [...] Bibliography. Published and unpublished documentation from the Archivo Alvaro del Bazan del Visio del Marques". Sure enough, in page 135 of the 1982 book it reads "All the Governors were officers of the Real Armada Española with the exception of Don Domingo Chauri and the next to last, Don Gerardo Bordas who was a private pilot, although soon after finishing his appointment on the islands was named "alférez de fragata" (not sure about the right translation) of the Real Armada."
There really seems to be a myriad of reliable, secondary sources that point to Guillén as the last Governor, evacuating in 1811 and leaving a plaque behind. I don't think it is our role to scrutiny each of them...
(I did not respond to your remark about Montevideo because this is not a WP:FORUM. And projection bias works both ways, so be sure to take 'sanity checks' often.)
Regards. --Langus (t) 22:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issue

The lede states that "Contemporary Falkland Islanders prefer to remain British." The only source for this claim is a UK governement website. The article is about a dispute between two parties, the government of the UK and the government of Argentina. You can not possibly write a NPOV article on a dispute by citing one side's version of events as fact. I'm going to remove the claim for the time being. Unless we can source the claim to a neutral third [arty, it doesn't belong. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

an Argintine poll showed that 87% of them want to remina british.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The point is cited in the article. It's standard practice not to put citations in the lede because the lede summarises the article. The fact in this case is widely known and not credibly disputed, and also critical to the reader's understanding of the topic, so there's no NPOV issue. And when you've just been blocked for edit warring, it's a very bad idea to immediately start edit warring on the same articles, because you'll just get blocked for longer. Kahastok talk 16:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"Standard practice not to put citations in the lede"? Really? Look at what WP:LEAD says: "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article. Belchfire (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
In that case the theory and the practice are different. We have had cites added to the lede of this and other articles before, and none of them have lasted long - because of editors coming along and saying no cites in the lede. Kahastok talk 18:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Kahastok and Slatersteven are correct, this is a non-disputed and referenced fact. The fact that the source might be a UK government website is really not important.
On the other hand I support 89's edit but for a different reason. Whatever the islanders prefer to consider themselves is immaterial to Argentina and thus mentioning this in the lede is giving the British claim more prominence. I believe that just stating "Falkland Islanders gained full British citizenship with the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, after the Falklands War." is more than enough, specially since the fact that they prefer to remain British is already in the article as Slatersteven said. Gaba p (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
A UK government website states that "An Argentine-inspired poll, conducted in 1994, revealed that 87% of them would be against any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty". There's no indication of what "Argentine-inspired" means, so we can't conclude that it means Argentinian. Furthermore, "against any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty" is not the same thing as "want to remain British". It could also mean "want to be independent/ self governed".
Citing a (non-neutral) source that says there was a poll -but provides no details of the poll- is not the same thing at all as directly citing a poll. In an article about a dispute, there is obviously a POV issue in citing one side's assertion as fact, doubly so if we put this assertion in the lede.
Aside from the fact that the source originates from the British government, it isn't about the fact that there is a dispute, it's about "we're right, they're wrong". A source like that has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not just "one side's assertion". It one of the most basic facts in the dispute, undisputed by either party, and one that has to be understood by any reader who wants to understand the dispute. It belongs in the lede. Kahastok talk 18:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, more than "one of the most basic facts in the dispute" it is the claim around which revolves the whole claim of sovereignty by the UK. That's why it doesn't belong in the lede, but in the Claims by the UK where it currently is stated. Again, I propose removing this mention by applying my proposed edit. Gaba p (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Vertium if you are reading this, I think your edit of the lede is actually pretty good, but it's definitely not a minor edit. I won't be reverting anymore as per the WP:3RR, but I'm quite certain your edit will be reverted in no time. Gaba p (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Gaba p Thanks. I believe keeping NPOV is quite important. If someone wants to revert my edit with better information from reliable sources and it meets the criteria stated in WP:NPOV, that's fine. I understand fully that this is an emotional issue for many people. However, WP is not the place for opinions, so non-encyclopedic edits (as well as edits that remove cited content) will be reverted. Vertium (talk to me) 18:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Is the daily mail citation really any less POV than the foreign office one? Phrases like "pride of Britain" "patriotic blur of red, white and blue", quoting people calling Sean Penn "fool" "idiot" and "moronic" for supporting Arentinia's claim. It doesn't read like a balanced source. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I object to the section being added. Per WP:LEDE, the lede should reflect the article. The point being added does not reflect the rest of the article - it is a point that is not made in the rest of the article.

The fact that the islanders want to remain British is one of the most basic facts of the dispute. If anyone had bothered to look, it's also entirely trivial to source. I found this in less than ten seconds. There'll be a referendum next year - which should be in the article - but the announcement is couched in terms not of deciding their future status but, per the BBC citing the islands' government, to "send a firm message to Argentina that islanders want to remain British."

This is a case of asking for sources to demonstrate that grass is green. We don't need to couch it in anything else. This is one of the most basic facts in this dispute. And there is no way a reader can properly understand this dispute without understanding this point. Kahastok talk 07:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor was being disingenous about the source. The WP:PRIMARY source was a poll commissioned by an Argentine newspaper. The same material is sourced to a number of secondary sources such as newspapers and magazines;already in the article. Its also mentioned on the FCO website as a WP:SECONDARY source. Its an uncontentious fact, acknowledged by all sides in the dispute and not really up for debate. Further to claim this furthers the British claim is nonsense, Argentina argues because they are British, they are not indigenous and that the right to self-determination does not apply. Its an important fact to both sides of the dispute. Removing it hardly makes for the hallmark of a quality article. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over the meaning of NPOV. It means that the article must take a neutral point of view in its statement of the facts, not that the content of the article must be devoid of any POV of the parties to a conflict. As Apcbg has removed content claiming "'the return of the islands to its sovereign control' is anything but NPOV", shows that this user might be confused. Stating that the Falklanders protest because they prefer British rule is not a violation of NPOV. Nor is the statement that Argentina would prefer return of the islands to it's sovereign control (both positions well documented). In an article about a conflct in the world, there cannot help but be points of view explained. It is the very fact that there are differing points of view between the parties that illustrate the conflict. I'm not going to add the citation back in right now, but I would suggest those of you who continue to remove content that represents the point of view of the British citizens of the Falklands in favor of the Argentine claim seriously consider your edits. You are trying to write an article that solely supports the Argentine POV and tht is not the purpose of Wikipedia. If you can't accept an article that represents the conflict instead of your position on the conflict, perhaps you should resort to writing in a blog instead of an encyclopedia. My involvement in this article started with a simple revert, and it was an article that held no emotional import to me whatsoever (being neither British nor Argentine), but now that it's clear there are partisan edits at work, I am now going to patrol this article more closely. Vertium (talk to me) 12:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Vertium, to say that Argentina claims the sovereignty of the Falklands is NPOV. To term that 'the return of the islands to its sovereign control' is not. It is just an Argentine POV that they had control of the Islands before 1833. That POV was rejected by Britain and the USA, and the Argentine attempt to make that POV a reality by the use of force in 1831 met a US military response resulting in the termination of the Argentine colonization attempt. Apcbg (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for making my point. Illustrating that Argentina claimed sovereign control before 1833 and that they wish to "return the islands to their sovereign control" is their point of view. Including that in the article (provided it's cited with a reliable source) is not a violation of NPOV. The article must be written in NPOV, it is not expected to be devoid of the POVs of the parties to a dispute. Best regards... Vertium (talk to me) 13:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
In the article, yes, and taking care we are not portraying claims as facts. Reliable sources and important details are rather for the article's main body than for the lede discussed here, though. Apcbg (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW Vertium, Apcbg is neither Argentine nor British, I think you are making presumptions. May I also point out that NPOV does not demand we provide either but we treat Argentine and British claims from a neutral POV. A neutral POV does not demand we present an Argentine claim from an Argentine perspective but a neutral one. The area has never been under the sovereign control of Argentina, we recognise it had such aspirations but it didn't achieve them, so to repeat the phrase you used is not in fact neutral. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, please don't infer from my comments. I'm capable of writing exactly what I mean. I didn't say anyone else was British or Argentine, nor did I even imply it, so it's you I think might be making presumptions. I merely stated that I have no emotional connection to this article because I am not British nor Argentine. A neutral POV in an article regarding a dispute absolutely requires that you present the points of view of both parties. I have left the content as it was re-written and merely added a source to support it. So, please review the update before you criticize it. Vertium (talk to me) 19:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I didn't criticise your update, though I side with those that say we don't reference the lede as the text is amplified in the text. I made the point that Apcbg being neither British or Argentine has no emotional connection regarding the dispute. It may or may not surprise you that few British editors do, the emotional connection is largely Argentine in nature. NPOV requires that we present the POV of both parties from a neutral perspective, it does not require that we present an Argentine POV from an Argentine perspective => take it to WP:NPOVN if you like but I am confident that my comments will stand scrutiny. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Vertium, as Kahastok pointed out, the agreement is not to put references in the lede. Also the claim that they prefer to remain British is already cited in the article and by a much more credible source (with all due respect, that article you quoted is completely unprofessional) so the current source added by you is not needed. I ask you to self revert before another editor reverts you. Gaba p (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
WP allows and requires citations wherever they're appropriate, including the lead, see WP:LEADCITE for more information. The article highlights nothing more than that there are Falkland Islanders who are willing to demonstrate against interlopers who side with Argentina's claims. That's not unprofessional. It's a reputable news outlet. If you don't like it, find a better one. But continued removal of citations will result in an appeal to WP:ANI. Vertium (talk to me) 19:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, your "more reliable source" is dated 1994. A reference to a 4 month old article in a newspaper is more "contemporary" than a 17 year old survey. Vertium (talk to me) 19:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do refer this to WP:ANI if you feel it necessary, however, I fear that you will experience the WP:BOOMERANG. The Daily Fail is not the best source to use, I doubt many Brits would agree its reputable. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I was going to make roughly the same point about the Daily Mail. I will replace it with the source I cited earlier, a piece by AFP dated two days ago that states the point clearly. Not that I think it's going to last long. As I noted before, there's a difference between what the policy says and how it's applied. In practice, cites in the lede tend to get removed within a month or two on the grounds that there should be no cites in the lede - often by otherwise entirely uninvolved editors. Kahastok talk 20:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. If you disagree with me please do us a favor and read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There's_no_such_thing_as_objectivity: "when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so".

Also, I find Belchfire's comment enlightening, as it was my understanding that references ought to be moved out of the lede. If that's not the case, I think we should evaluate our position. I've seen a lot of time wasted on the frequent challenges to that section... --Langus (t) 20:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with replacing the citation, in fact I asked for a better one if you had it. As to citations in the lead, I just had a look at 20 random articles (excluding stubs and disambiguation pages) and found that 15 had citations in the lead (many of them had multiple citations in the lead). To claim that citations in the lead are routinely removed is simply not accurate. I again ask that you please read WP:LEADCITE for additional information if the policy is unclear to you. Happy to give Belchfire credit for that. Thank you. Vertium (talk to me) 11:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_9&oldid=1143536887"