Talk:Falkland Islanders/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Compromise wording with a view to reaching consensus

Per proposal by Guy, how would users feel about wording like this:

"As Argentina lays claim to the Falkland Islands and offers citizenship on the basis of jus soli, it considers Falkland-born individuals to be Argentine nationals.(1) However, very few Falkland Islanders have accepted Argentine nationality on this basis and the population does not consider itself to be Argentinean.(2)"

Sources for (1): https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4a5b40202.pdf https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/33839/EUDO-CIT_2014_01_UK.pdfhttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/45687615.pdf https://boe.es/publicaciones/biblioteca_juridica/anuarios_derecho/articulo.php?lang=gl&id=ANU-C-1979-40080100826 https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/refade/article/view/6013 https://www.unhcr.org/43f43fba11.pdf (p.191-193) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/17/falklands-argentina-britain-james-peck-artist-citizenship

Sources for (2)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/17/falklands-argentina-britain-james-peck-artist-citizenship https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/33839/EUDO-CIT_2014_01_UK.pdfhttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/45687615.pdf https://www.unhcr.org/43f43fba11.pdf (p.191-193)

Boynamedsue (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Swap the order of the last couple of subclauses, viz: "the population generally rejects Argentinean jurisdiction and only a few individual islanders have applied for Argentinian nationality" or something to that effect. "Very few" doesn't really convey just how rare this is. You cite exactly two examples, one of which is reported only in a single scarcely-neutral source. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely missed this post earlier. There are several reliable sources available relating to the case you refer to. The source I have now removed related to "El Clarin", which is an Argentine newspaper of record similar to the Guardian or Times. It is considered reliable in terms of news-reporting on the Spanish wikipedia, although some users on here have been asserting it isn't without any basis. However, I have removed it now due to the legal issues that other users have stated to affect it, issues which do not relate to the validity of the source. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE, reliable sources don't attach any weight to this and as such the need for this is disputed. We have already suggested a more appropriate compromise that the place to include an edit on the topic in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, where it is possible to provide the depth of coverage to cover the relevant nuances. That suggestion was dismissed without proper consideration by the OP and I don't see it as a compromise to include content that fundamentally doesn't belong in an article. WCM_email 12:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that is a somewhat dogmatic attitude, though I understand the premise. The existence of the sovereignty dispute doesn't cover this - what is probably more significant is that I can only find credible evidence of one person who has ever taken advantage of it. That would qualify for a mention, because it's indicative of a thing about the islanders, rather than the islands or their sovereignty - namely, that even though they are accorded automatic Argentinian citizenship, they don't take it up. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't have adequate sources to say this as I explain in the next section. Furthermore, the wording is contradictory: Falkland Islands may be citizens of Argentina or Argentina may offer them citizenship. Both statements cannot both be true. They either are citizens or they can apply for citizenship. We don't say for example that people born in the UK have the right to become British citizens. TFD (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I remain opposed. Even aside the well-founded accuracy concerns, there is still nothing here that suggests or implies that the appropriate weight to give to this point is anything greater than zero. Let alone much larger than the weight to be given to the islanders' British citizenship - the one that they accept and actually use. The fact that Boynamedsue chooses to ignore this concern is not going to make it go away. Kahastok talk 21:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I would note that "weight" does not mean "absolute number of words" it includes positioning and qualifying language, that is we we should say "Falklanders ARE British citizens" first and then "Argentina CONSIDERS...." The reason we need more words is precisely to satisfy WP:WEIGHT Boynamedsue (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Taking a break to summarise

This is an article about Falkland Islanders, it isn't an article about the sovereignty dispute. The fact is that Falkland Islanders are British citizens and reliable sources do not attach any great weight to the entirely theoretical legal theory concerning Argentine citizenship. Indeed, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE strongly suggest that this shouldn't be included. The OP is suggesting a whole paragraph dedicated to Argentina, against a simple bald sentence concerning their actual British citizenship. That is totally unbalanced coverage.

The official Argentine position is the islanders are British citizens, which should put an end to it really.

Instead people have suggested the appropriate place to discuss this is at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, I don't think there is anyone who disagrees with that except the OP who insists that it must be included here. It's clear that he is not listening to or considering the arguments of others, since he repeatedly ascribes opposition to his proposal is down to impure motives eg [1]. This invective has poisoned this RFC, as has the conduct of the OP. The conduct of the OP is shocking, anyone who comments is badgered in an attempt to change their mind. Even those who suggest that wikipedia should cover the matter don't insist it should be covered here but the OP is counting their comment that his proposal is overly simplistic as supporting him.

I don't see any benefit in extending this drama fest any further and have requested an uninvolved admin close. WCM_email 12:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Falkland Islanders are indeed British citizens (for now - wait until we need to strike a trade deal with South American countries). However, Argentina also accords them automatic citizenship should they want it. The fact that they don't want it, doesn't make that not a thing. I have no strong view other than that, as presented, it was a no-hoper, something even the OP now seems to acknowledge. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Which I don't have a problem with in the appropriate place but I don't think that's here. WCM_email 12:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It is questionable whether Falkland Islanders are citizens under Argentinian law. An article written by the Argentinian law professor Juan Antonio Travieso argued in 1986 that they were and this opinion has been repeated in a number of secondary sources. He argued that because jus soli (birthright citizenship) is guaranteed by the constitution which recognizes the islands as part of Argentina the islanders are Argentinians. But jus soli by definition excludes people who are not under the jurisdiction of the state, such as children of diplomats and in territories not under the state's control.

No law or executive order has been provided to show that Argentina provides a mechanism for Falkland Islanders to be recognized as citizens. In the case of James Peck, he renounced his UK citizenship and received a birth certificate issued by the Argentinan Province of "Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and South Atlantic Islands" before he was issued with Argentinian citizenship documents. And the president of Argentina, Cristina Kirchner, said that he became a citizen. This was variously reported as registration or naturalization, rather than confirmation of citizenship since birth. Having citizenship and having a right to citizenship are two distinct things.

A number of editors have said they thought that Peck's citizenship was a publicity stunt. The citizenship claim appears to have developed out of Argentinians as part of their claim on the islands. Their position was that Falkland Islanders were British people illegally occupying the islands and therefore had no right to self-determination. But if they in fact were found to be distinct from the British, then they were Argentinians, and no loss of self-determination would occur if the islands were given to Argentina.

So we know that in two cases Argentina provided citizenship documents to people on the basis of birth in the Falklands. But we don't know if they did that because they were required to by law or for other reasons. There seems to be insufficient coverage of this in reliable secondary sources for inclusion.

One editor pointed out that analyzing the conflicting information available to us is original research. But as that policy explains, we sometimes need to provide analysis to claims before inclusion. The policy merely stops us from putting that analysis into the article. It doesn't stop us from leaving information out of the article because it appears dubious, per contentious claims.

On a final point, while this is not a medical article, the same principles in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) apply: "Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information. For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."

TFD (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A slight correction, James Peck did not renounce his British citizenship, in fact he made a point of stating that he was keeping his British passport [2]. He in fact applied for a residents DNI but was forced to accept citizenship in what became a political stunt. The only reason he ever applied for a residents DNI is that going through a divorce in Argentina, Argentine officials deliberately made life difficult for him because of his British papers. WCM_email 23:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG, there are two people from the Falklands who accepted Argentinian citizenship status: Alejandro Betts and James Peck. Betts was given citizenship papers as a native of the Malvinas in 2014,[3] but he had already been naturalized as early as 2007. Normally I would agree with adding this information. Unfortunately, it's not clear whether their citizenship was recognized from birth, or by right registration or as an executive decision. Incidentally, if Betts had birthright citizenship, why would he be naturalized? TFD (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that "the sources are wrong because they contradict my personal interpretation of citizenship law" is a valid posture to take. Do you have sources relating to this case that support your assertion? As for WP:WEIGHT I feel this is being used spuriously in this case, it is meant to apply to conflicting viewpoints, not exclude factual information that is less commonly sourced than other facts. To this point no source has been provided which conflicts with the statement "Argentina views people born in the Falklands to be Argentine nationals", with the exception of general declarations that the Falklanders are British by Argentines. But this does not contradict Argentine law, as people can be British and Argentine at the same time, and a large proportion of Falkland Islanders were not born on the islands. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Further, facts that are of no relevance to the article may be excluded, but the position of a country which claims a region is clearly relevant to the "nationality" section of an article on the ethnic group that inhabits it. That's all I have to say really. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not my personal interpretation. The principles of jus soli were clearly established in common law as providing nationality to persons born within the allegiance of the state. Since Argentina modelled its constitution, including its nationality provisions, on the U.S. constitution, one would expect that the words it uses would have the same meaning, particularly when they are copied from American rather than Spanish law. of course they may interpret it differently but that is a contentious claim that requires conclusive sources. It goes against their claim that the British people illegally occupying the Malvinas are in fact Argentinian citizens lawfully living there.

Furthermore, it is not my personal interpretation that someone may not be both an Argentinian citizen and an alien with a right to claim Argentinian citizenship.

Incidentally, quotation marks should be used when you directly quote other editor's actual comments, not for your personal misinterpretation of them. Bear in mind that inaccuracies and contradictions within your postings are distractions and harm their credibility/

TFD (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, presumably something to do with dual nationality, but that's getting into the weeds. The point is that (a) the claim / offer is made and (b) virtually nobody wants it. Both of those seem to me to be worthy of mention at some level. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't know if the offer is available to everyone or how valid the claim is. Note that Argentina would not accept a birth certificate issued in the Falkland Islands as proof of birth there. TFD (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed we don't, people seem to be forgetting the case of Soledad Rende, an Argentine woman born in the Falklands as one of the stunts Argentina used to pull. She had difficulty getting an Argentine passport and had to fight for citizenship in the courts because Argentine officials did not recognise the Falklands as Jus Soli as it was not part of Argentina. The subject is not relevant to this article per WP:WEIGHT but could have relevance elsewhere, possibly even an article in it's own right. WCM_email 23:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Argentine sources on Rende state that the problem was that her birth certificate was in English and issued by authorities they didn't recognise. The Argentine courts then recognised her as a citizen by Jus Soli when her father took the case further. I'd say her case supports rather than contradicts inclusion. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Nationality (January 2021)

Another source which states Falkland born individuals are Argentine citizens in Argentine law, from International Law Reports, Volume 8, the relevant text is: "It follows that the lands in question continue to form de jure part of the territory of our state, and accordingly, the petitioner, born there, needs no naturalisation, since he has acquired the natural-born citizenship which Article 1 of law 346 recognises in all who have been born on the national territory or its legal extensions."

The sentence is recorded in a book of international jurisprudence, and is taken from Jurisprudencia Argentina n. 49. There is a direct statement by the RS that a petition for naturalisation was rejected due to the fact the Falkland-born individual was already an Argentine citizen by birth. I am going to put a question regarding the text on the NOR noticeboard, as to whether the above text constitutes a primary or secondary source, and whether it constitutes OR to use it to support the statement "Argentina considers Falkland-born individuals to be Argentine citizens." Boynamedsue (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't use a court decision because we don't know if it set a binding precedent or whether it is still valid today. In this case an Argentinian federal court refused in 1935 a request for naturalization on the basis that the litigant was already a citizen by virtue of birth in the Falklands. I can find all kinds of statements made by British and American judges that are contrary to accepted law today. Either the statement was dicta (statements that set no precedent) or the decision was appealed or the court was too junior to set precedents or a later decision voided it or subsequent legislation changed the law. We cannot even assume that Argentinian law uses court precedents. I could only find one reference to this case in an article. You would need legal scholars with expert knowledge of Argentinian constitutional law to review all the cases and opinions over the years to determine this. TFD (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it wouldn't be enough on its own, but I would suggest that in conjunction with all the articles by Argentine legal experts and the academic references, it is more than enough to support the continuous Argentine offer of citizenship. I am at the minute just adding to the list of sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the answer is that Argentina doesn't really have a concept of binding precedent. I would say that it may not be OR in principle to report the results of the case. But it is OR to infer what modern Argentine law is from that case.

But I would add that even if it were accepted that this were not OR, it would not mean that the text should go in the article. There is a world of information that we can source in a way that is not OR - but that does not belong in this article. A key part of the standard is WP:WEIGHT. Boynamedsue proposed (and presumably still proposes) that the weight to be given to this point should be equal to, or greater than, the weight given to the islanders' British citizenship. He has repeatedly been asked to justify this in terms of WP:WEIGHT. He has repeatedly failed to do so. Kahastok talk 11:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

In terms of Argentine law, you seem to start from the position this must not be true, and look for reasons why. There are several Argentine legal texts, and texts from other places, which support the fact it has always been the case.

With regards to WP:WEIGHT, you are applying it incorrectly here, and the same goes for the term "prominence". The article would state British nationality first as a fact in wikivoice, this gives it greater weight and prominence than a statement which would be qualified as an Argentine government position, with a further qualifier that Argentine nationality is rarely accepted by the population.

But in reality the two claims are not competing theories, they are entirely compatible, there is nothing about the Argentine legal position which contradicts the fact that most Falkland born individuals are British citizens, they are simply two separate facts about the citizenship of Falklanders. The only way WEIGHT is relevant is in the question of whether the fact of the offer of Argentine citizenship is significant in terms of the article, and as Argentina claims the islands, and the offer is occasionally taken up, it certainly is. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Suppose someone born in the Falklands (perhaps now residing in Spain as an EU citizen) reads this article and decides to move to Argentina. They quit their job, sell their house and fly there. Will the Argentinians allow them to enter, remain and work in the country and issue them a passport? I have my doubts. On the other hand, a person born in the UK and living abroad could move to the UK as a citizen. TFD (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The Argentine sources on this are quite clear, I don't have any doubts tbh. I have seen at least half a dozen cases of living individuals who have claimed Argentine nationality on this basis, and lots of quotes by Argentine officials stating this is the case. Maybe because I'm a Spanish speaker it seems more real to me? There are also "move to Argentina" websites that probably don't class as reliable wikipedia sources that also say so. Having said that, wikipedia isn't responsible for giving immigration information, only for reporting what reliable sources say. Let me put it another way though, have you ever seen a source that says Falkland-born individuals can't claim Argentine citizenship on that basis? I never have, and I've done a lot of reading on it. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's for the person wishing to add or maintain material to find sources to back it, not the other way around. Kahastok talk 14:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, but as very many sources which state that Falkland-born individuals can, in fact, obtain Argentine citizenship exist, the question is a pertinent one. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If your view is that it is not OR to use a court ruling from the 1935 as a source for modern law, then frankly I must again question your WP:COMPETENCE. Because that would clearly suggest that - despite having been here for over 14 years - you have literally no idea what WP:NOR means. Kahastok talk 14:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Another source, from the late Jack Child, professor of Latin American studies at Leeds University (p133): "Argentina has always regarded the islands to be part of its national territory, to the extent that it proclaims anyone born there to be an Argentine citizen (whether they accept it and appreciate that citizenship or not - and it is invariably not)" Boynamedsue (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That's still not a source on the topic of Falkland Islanders. So you have still not come even close to establishing the standard required by WP:WEIGHT here. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how many times you announce New Source New Source New Source. It's quite clear now that you won't find even one source on the subject of the islanders that gives this point as much weight as you want to give it. Kahastok talk 14:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you should maybe calm down a little here, I really hope we can avoid the nastiness which have characterised these discussions. This source is on the Falkland Island question and is written by an expert in the field. There is no requirement that all sources used on this page, must relate exclusively to the Falkland Islanders and mention them and nothing else. None of the sources already linked fulfil those criteria.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't like being told your arguments are obviously ridiculous, then I suggest you stop making arguments that are obviously ridiculous.

The source is Miniature Messages: The Semiotics and Politics of Latin American Postage Stamps. If we accept that it is on the "Falkland Islands question", then the place to discuss that would be on the relevant article. This article doesn't even mention the dispute at present. I also note that the quote you provide appears to be only available through snippet view, which would mean that the source cannot be used (because we do not know the context).

The only way to demonstrate that WP:WEIGHT is met is through sources on the same subject as the article. The fact that a point is mentioned in sources on other topics is neither here nor there in terms this article. There are lots and lots of sources that variously mention the Trump presidency, the Roman Empire, the speed of light or the colour blue. That does not mean that those topics belong in this article.

You propose - whether you like it or not - to give this point a weight equal to, or greater than, the weight given to the islanders current nationality. It's up to you to justify this weight. If you cannot - as would be implied by your failure to do so over the past two years - then the text cannot go in the article. Kahastok talk 15:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The chapter concerned is entitled "Falklands/Malvinas" and treats the question in detail, referring to the political use of symbolism in stamps to strengthen the British/Argentine interpretation of the Islands. Read it, then get back to me.

As I have said above, mentioning the Argentine citizenship offer does not give it equal weight. The factual citizenship would be mentioned first, and the Argentine claim would be prefixed by "the Argentine government considers". In so far as WP:WEIGHT is relevant, it would be satisfied. Your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is unfortunately mistaken. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We are basically re-hashing old arguments. The fact you have found a 1935 Argentinian case doesn't add anything since we would need a least a reliable secondary source to interpret it. As I said before, I am not confident based on your sources that anyone born in the Falklands would be considered an Argentinian under their laws in the same way anyone born in Buenos Aires would be. It goes against the concept of jus soli, which they claim to follow. All you have is one person who was given a passport. But the UK gave citizenship to Zola Budd and Conrad Black, despite the fact they did not meet residency requirements. Governments can do that. We don't know whether the Terra del Fuego and Argentinian governments based their decisions on one case on politics or the law. TFD (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the 1935 source is not conclusive on its own, but both it and the quote by the Professor of Latin American studies add to a body of evidence which is pretty conclusive. The number of living Argentine citizens given passports on the basis of Falklands birth is actually 5 or 6, but I don't really want to get into it. Like I said, I'm just adding sources, then at some point I'll do a bold edit based on them, which will likely be reverted then discussed and taken to an rfc with a better text than the last one. I also feel we should have evidence of the former citizenship status of Falklanders, when they were not full British citizens. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't build a body of evidence because that would be original research. As I said before, we would need a conclusive source. We don't know if Falkland Islanders are Argentinian citizens or have a right to citizenship or if the individuals you mentioned attained citizenship through political decisions made by the Argentinian government, similar to Budd and Black in the UK. Bear in mind that weight is a necessary requirement for inclusion of information and that cannot be established here. TFD (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, by body of evidence I meant numerous sources. Like I say, the Spanish legal texts are very explicit on this point, as are various other sources. Still, this is probably a discussion for down the line.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. You can't even identify the correct Jack Child, the author is Dr Jack Child [4] of the American University not the post-grad student at Leeds University (unless you confused him even further with John Child the military historian at Leeds). The problem with Dr Child is he had a pronounced pro-Argentine bias, which is very much apparent in his writings and reflects his upbringing in Argentina. That aside, all you can assert from the source you found is that is the opinion of Dr Child; a non-legal expert who specialised in cultural studies and conflict resolution in Latin America. It's akin to asking a lawyer to comment on history. So no it is not in any way conclusive.

I'll try once again in the vain hope it may just sink in. What you need to do is first demonstrate that WP:WEIGHT is satisfied, ie that sources about Falkland Islanders regularly comment that they are also eligible for Argentine citizenship. Ideally this should be neutral academic sources on the subject of Falkland Islanders. The fact that they don't should give you a clue. Frankly it is your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT that is deeply flawed. Your sources should guide the weight you attach to a topic, when you find yourself looking for sources to support what you want to write then stop.

What you are doing is completely out of kilter with accepted wikipedia practise. You have started with a premise and are trying to bend sources into supporting that premise. The fact that you're openly stating you're going to go against consensus less than 6 months after the last RFC in order to force another RFC leads me to start to question whether you have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit wikipedia. WCM_email 16:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

HI WCM, hope you are well. I disagree with your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, and feel that there are a large number of RS supporting the statement. When the RFC was closed it was specifically stated by the admin who closed it that another could be opened with a different question. Try chill a bit, eh? All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WCM is correct on the interpretation of weight. It's about the balance of sources about the topic. Do reliable about Falkland Islanders routinely mention the Argentinian citizenship issue? No, so it has no weight. Is it important? Maybe, but editors don't decide what is important. TFD (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a rather extreme reading of WP:WEIGHT, which is again a personal interpretation. There are rather few sources which refer directly to the Falklanders alone, they are generally discussed in relation to other aspects of the Falklands. None of the sources on this page, for example, are about them alone. There really are quite a few articles making reference to the Argentine citizenship question available, I think we are at around 20 now. In most pages, that would be accepted as sufficient. Like I say, it's not going to be solved right now. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an extreme reading of WP:WEIGHT. It is literally how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

Your sourcing is clearly flawed. The fact that you're claiming a 1935 court case as a source for a claimed modern law demonstrates that amply - frankly that's a pretty desperate argument. But even if it wasn't, the existence of twenty cherry-picked sources (not on the topic of the article) that mention a given point is actually generally not enough to get that point into a given article.

I'm sure I could easily find a lot more than twenty biographies of JFK mentioning his war record. That doesn't mean I get to put go on about JFK's war record in an article on algebra. Or even in an article about the Apollo Program or the Cuban Missile Crisis, unless the sources on the subject of the Apollo Program or Cuban Missile Crisis deem it relevant.

That said, it's clear from your comment above that you view this discussion as a procedural step, that you have no intention of paying any attention to anything that anyone else says. You are entrenched on one "side" of a WP:BATTLEGROUND and have no interest in any position that does not accord with your POV. That's not a good place to be on Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 22:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Strangely, my experience of your and WCM's position is one of extreme entrenchment. Perhaps we all need to compromise a little? I have certainly taken on board the comments of users in the last rfc. I would suggest that it may be that your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is correct, but it was not seen as on overwhelming argument in the last rfc and many users, including very experienced ones, disagreed. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)