Jump to content

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Recent rebuff

The BBC reports that Argentina declined the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Falkland Islands, saying "[t]he international community does not recognise a third party in this dispute." This would seem to be a significant and worth coverage in the article. The UK responded in a manner that seems to put the brakes on any talks. Perhaps less significant is a claim to the islands by Uraguay. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree but recent events such as this one have been previously rejected as per WP:NOTNEWS. Feel free to make a bold edit though. Regards. Gaba p (talk)
Argentina was offered talks with the UK FO but threw its teddy out of the pram when it found the islanders would be present. Argentina regularly demands talks but it does nicely illustrate only its terms, when its been offered talks twice in the past year it has refused them. I refer to this above. However, per WP:NOTNEWS I would suggest specific mention is not made.
That comment from Uruguay is interesting from a purely academic point. Utis possidetis juris also known as Utis possidetis juris of 1810 was a principle agreed among South American states at the Conference of Lima in 1848. In essence it settles border conflicts, by fixing the borders of South American states at the limits defined by the former Spanish colonies in 1810 (Argentina btw did not sign or agree the original treaty). In 1810, the Spanish penal colony at Puerto Soledad was administered from Montevideo, conferring any rights upon the modern state of Uruguay not Argentina. Argentina cites Utis possidetis juris as the principle by which it "inherited" the Falkland Islands. Utis possidetis juris is not accepted as a general principle of international law and as a non-signatory of the original treaty, the UK cannot be compelled to accept it as a factor in the Falklands dispute. When Uruguay had a long standing dispute with Argentina over the Island of Martin Garcia, Uruguayan diplomats sometimes taunted their Argentine counterpart with the technically superior Uruguayan claim threatening to claim sovereignty and transfer to the UK
Like I say of academic interest but probably not suitable content to the article. I can see only edit wars resulting if you were to try. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Juan Ackermann and Alfredo Villegas are, respectively, an architect and an engineer. If they were versed in laws they would know that sovereignty is lost if not protested upon other party's violation of it (acquiescence).
Most importantly, Uruguay's official position remains unchanged by this book. --Langus (t) 02:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
(Adding this here to avoid interrupting flow with the outdent below).
There is acquiescence, but I believe both Britain and Argentine would argue that the other side has acquiesced at some point over the years, so I don't think that would be a good reason to exclude a putative Uruguayan claim from the article. Right now, the good reason to exclude is that the point gets very little WP:WEIGHT in the sources - being purely theoretical and of no practical relevance. If the Uruguayan government were to claim sovereignty, I would imagine that this would change. Kahastok talk 18:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
My only reason for opening this thread was to draw the editors here to the recent media coverage so that they could be assessed for their value and mined for anything useful. That being said, I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS can be used as a justification for rejected the recent UK overture and Argentine rejection. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
[1] The article explains it rather well why per notnews, we don't report every spat. Even those where Argentine diplomats make asses of themselves. This is of course down to my pro-Argentine bias....:-)
Actually Langus, that interpretation is not unique to those two. JC Metford considered the Uruguayan claim for sovereignty under Utis possidetis juris to be superior to Argentina's for example. It would be relevant if Argentina had never "inherited" sovereignty as it claims but Uruguay, in which case Uruguay has you correctly point out as has lost it by acquiescence. Sovereignty is not gained by persistence in asserting a inheritance that never happened.
But here is another point, Utis possidetis juris was agreed at the Conference of Lima in 1848. Argentina never signed the treaty or accepted it at the time. At what point did Argentina adopt the convention? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

On the "rejected talks": are you aware that the issue of sovereignty was off the table? "The representatives made it clear that they would be making some forceful remarks and that if the issue of sovereignty came up, it would not be discussed."[2] Looks like a media stunt really. --Langus (t) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a media stunt to me. Argentina only backed out of the talks when it learned Falkland Islanders would be there. That's quite a "fuck you" to the people of the islands. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually they knew would be there in December. Timmerman appears to have tried a stunt and came unstuck. Whilst I have little time for these diplomatic charades, Hague played a blinder here and Timmerman ended up looking foolish and inept. Having seen the guest list for next week, Argentina is scraping the barrel a bit.
Did you know anything about what I asked btw? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW President Fernández did the same at the C24 last June: when the FIG representatives directly and publicly asked to talk to her and her government, Fernández basically blanked them. Kahastok talk 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
@WCM: are you asking to me? I don't know what convention are you referring to, but the principle of uti possidetis didn't emerge from a convention. The primary idea behind uti possidetis juris is to organize a territory internally, as it was politically divided before a critical date. It is not a Latin American thing. --Langus (t) 19:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I was actually. You're incorrect. Utis possidetis is a Roman law, Utis possidetis juris was a principle agreed at the Conference of Lima as an agreement between Latin American states. It was adopted by treaty, it is not a general principle of International law, nor universally applied. Some African states have since agreed to use the principle as a means of determining border disputes. As I said Argentina didn't subscribe to the treaty, nor did it accept it at the time. So I'm curious at what point it subcribed to the principle it at first rejected? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly:
"Uti possidetis juris is a modified form of uti possidetis; created for the purpose of avoiding terra nullius, the original version of uti possidetis began as a Roman law governing the rightful possession of property. During the medieval period it evolved into a law governing international relations and has recently been modified for situations of newly independent states." (taken from Uti possidetis juris) --Langus (t) 11:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source....Utis possidetis and Utis possidetis juris refer to different things, it certain[3] And I quote:
Utis possidetis juris of 1810 is a principle agreed among Latin American states, it is not a generally accepted principle of international law. What is interesting, well to me at least, is that Argentina rejected the Conference of Lima in 1848 and at the time refused to accept the principle. None of the treaties involving the evolution of Utis possidetis juris include Argentina. So purely from an academic exercise, I'm genuinely curious at what point Argentina accepted the principle? You might like to read that paper, it is very well written and researched. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Utis possidetis juris is a principle that evolved through history and that was later applied during the decolonization of Africa and the breakup of Yugoslavia. Ergo, it is not a Latin American thing, nor something you had to sign for in 1848 to get the right apply it.
Anyhow, I agree that this is getting forumy, we should probably stop. --Langus (t) 03:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No Utis possidetis is a principle of Roman law, which has evolved. Utis possidetis juris is a modification of that principle adopted by treaty in South America and later applied in Africa with the consent of the parties involved. One of the principles of the ICJ is that states have to agree the applicable principles, since differing states have different paradigms of law. And as I pointed out, Utis possidetis juris was rejected by Argentina in 1848 and again in 1876. So when did it change? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
We'll continue this on another occasion, Wee. Cheers. --Langus (t) 22:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
That Argentina declined an opportunity to meet with representatives from the Falkland Islands is nothing new. What seems to be a new development though, and setting a most significant precedent, is the refusal of the British Government to discuss Falklands related topics with Argentina other than jointly with FIG representatives. Apcbg (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Doesnt really strike me as much of a precedent. It seems to be attempting to accomodate the much more self-conscious and politically assertive FIG. Its also in line with the consistent UK position of the FI wishes being paramount in any decision making. In any event, the unwillingness that A displays in discussing issues with the FIG flies in the face of its "anti-colonialist" creditials, as it ignores the fundamental right of self-determination, which is a cornerstone of the UN. As the FIG actually attends the C24, unlike the UK, it makes As unwillingness to accept them as negotiating partners all the more problematic. Irondome (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Argentina will not agree to discuss the matter with the islanders because that would be an implicit acceptance that they are a legal partner in the Malvinas/Falklands dispute. Argentina states they are not, being an implanted population, hence self-determination does not apply to them. This is nothing new, the UK of course knows this rather well which is why this can be regarded as a mere stunt by the UK to keep the islanders happy and present Argentina as the one not willing to negotiate.
Anyway, let's all remember WP:FORUM. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
That is a strange argument G. Many nations were originally "implanted" in terms of their original core pop. The original 13 colonies of the US, Australian "first fleet" etc. Indeed the original European derived pop of A itself. Seems A is straining the argument to breaking point on that one. Irondome (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the difference is that Argentina claims that population displaced an already existing Argentinian population. You can check Disputed status of Gibraltar (be aware of the usual POV issues) which has a similar history and where the British/Spanish claims are very similar. In any case I don't intent on commenting on the rightness/wrongness of either the Argentinian (or Spanish) nor the British claim Irondome, that's not why we're here for. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Nor I Gaba. Indeed that appears to be the A position. Irondome (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It is very easy to overstate the similarities between the Falklands dispute and the Gibraltar dispute - there are very important differences. Key among them is that Spain explicitly signed Gibraltar over to Britain in 1713 and that as such (and contrary to popular belief) Spain does not actually dispute the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar: only its extent. Kahastok talk 21:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"It seems to be attempting to accommodate the much more self-conscious and politically assertive FIG." Maybe so — which incidentally was very much the driving force behind the constitutional development followed by Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. — but that's not the point; and yes, it is a major precedent indicating that from now on, and especially after the forthcoming referendum, the British Government will not just pursue internationally Falklands made Falklands policies, but will not be representing the Falklands other than with FIG direct participation. Apcbg (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed version



Comments on the Proposed version

Noting Wee refused to address the points made about his version, here they go again asking him to please comment on the issues if you intent on moving this short version forward.

  1. Sources [51][52][53][54] all point to the same article. This article does not support the claims sourced in [51] and [54] (state how it does please). Statement sourced in [53] is misleading since there is full support, not just calls for negotiations, hence my re-wording of that statement.
  2. The mention of "domestic politics" is definitely unacceptable. This is an opinion aimed at downplaying/minimizing the whole Argentinian claim (that has been going on for almost two centuries now). This is not a fact (again, it's an opinion) and it would be have to be assigned to whoever is saying that (ie: no authoritative voice) and would necessarily lead to a mention of British interests (ie: oil). I say no opinions in the section.
  3. The word "recognize" is still being used, this is neither accurate nor acceptable. The Commonwealth and the EU both "list" the islands. There is a big difference. Present the sources that state this and we can take a look at them (fourth time asking?)
  4. Title is still unnecessarily vague. My proposed title is more accurate and sourced.

@Martin: the version has been terribly reduced and only a handful of countries are being mentioned. What exactly are your concerns with my version proposed below? I'll be happy to address any issues you might have with it if you let me know.

I see that the mention of the C24 is still being challenged so I changed it and reduced it (again). Here it goes:


Let me note that the current section proposed is 17 times shorter than the previous one (yes, I did the math) Considering that there was never a consensus to remove the old version (which should be up right now) I'd say that we are making a big compromise here.

Once again: Wee & Kahastok please be precise on your answers and/or issues with this version, as I am being with the version Wee proposes. Vague statements really lead nowhere. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Some suggestions:
Could Latin America be replaced with 'most/many/some Latin American countries'.
Could the second sentence be linked to the first with something like 'resulting in'
Maybe Spain should show 'weak support' or something. To say it has cooled attaches importance to a previous position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
@Martin:
1- Definitely.
2- Not sure I understand you, the second sentence is pretty extensive in its current form. Would you like to present a proposed edit?
I have edited the proposal to show what I mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no issues with your proposed edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
3- We have a source for "support"[4] (which warrants the importance assigned to the previous position) and a source that states "Madrid fears that the escalation of this issue might come to dominate the Ibero-American summit scheduled for November, and is therefore quite cool in its support"[5]. The mention of Spain's position having "cooled" is already quite WP:SYN and the article is definitely not enough to source a "weak support".
Given Martin's suggestions, I've edited the proposed version (and so did he). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Again with the deepest respect I reject your claim that the sources do not support the claim. Further I used the source you and everyone agreed we should use. I further point out, not for the first time, that I have responded to your points. I refer you to my previous answer.
Again I note you fail to address the criticism of previous texts that inserting so many cites, each referring to pretty much the same thing, churned out on an annual basis ad nauseum is not helpful.
Your writing isn't neutral, you imply the UN has regularly passed a resolution on the manner, it hasn't passed a resolution since 1988. The C24 is not the UN GA, its output is recommendations to the IV Committee, they are not UN resolutions. You also use WP:WEASEL words to emphasise matters. Slimming it down to what is relevant to wikipedia we have:


If you're not prepared to acknowledge there is more than one factor in pushing Argentina to raise this constantly, you do not get to pick the one you prefer. If you're not prepared to note the pressures of domestic politics, then to solely list the constitution is not neutral or objective. One of those cases where less is more to reach a compromise. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The most significant international dimension that ought to come first in such a section is surely the Falklands' status of EU overseas territory.
That's not 'listing' as alleged by some, that's mandatory EU Law.
Furthermore, the successive EU constitutional treaties enshrining that status have been ratified by each EU member state with none of them making any reservations regarding the Falklands; that's been in place for decades now, so it's a little bit late to pretend/allege neutrality too. Apcbg (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced we've got the weight quite right based on our agreed source. The entire second paragraph of the section All Politics is International? The Tide of Multilateral Pressure is essentially demonstrating the point that "[t]hough in principle all Latin American countries support Argentina’s claim, for the most part their support ends there", with specific mention of Chile and Brazil. The mention of Spain, in a shorter third paragraph, is merely an extension to this wider point. The weight given to the limits of Latin American support is much higher than that given to Spain. Kahastok talk 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@Kahastok: that source is but one source. Just because you want it to be the only one (and why would you want that is beyond me) and you could have agreed as much with Wee, that does not make it a mandate. Let me point you to the UK Parliament's own article about the issue Argentina and the Falklands, where the regional summits and the support of Latin America are stated as follows:

  • Latin American countries generally, and all those in MERCOSUR (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with associate members Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Peru) support Argentina’s claims in the sovereignty dispute (although Guatemala also supports the principle of self-determination), along with China, Syria, Tunisia, Congo and Russia.
  • On 23 February 2010 Latin America and Caribbean leaders in the Rio Group of 32 countries concluded a two-day summit in Mexico by showing solidarity with Argentina over the Falklands, reaffirming what they called the "legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain".
  • Mercosur’s support for the Argentinean claim goes back to 25 June 1996, when Mercosur Member States, plus Bolivia and Chile, expressed in the Declaration of Potrero de los Funes their full support for Argentina’s "legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute related to the Question of the Malvinas Islands".
  • The launch of another Latin–American grouping, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which has voiced its support for the Argentinean sovereignty claim, has added to the growing number of South American countries and organisations which support the Argentinean position.
  • At the Rio Group meeting at which CELAC was agreed, it was very clear that the new grouping intended to press for a resumption of UK-Argentina talks about sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and that CELAC firmly supported the latter’s claim.

If you want to argue against this source, please be my guest. I'll await your comments.

@Wee: I think we might be reaching a compromise here. The constitution mention was actually added by you, I compromised accepting it if I recall correctly. I'd have no issues not mentioning it. The sources are there so we can pick a few before the final version is moved to the article, I've mentioned this about 5 times now. Here's the proposed version with some minor changes, mainly I changed "many" to "most" in regard to Latin American countries support as per UK Parliament's source. This source would actually point to a much larger mention of summits, but let's just leave it at that. Aside from that I merely re-arranged one or two sentences.


Do we have an agreement? Should we select which sources make the final cut and edit the version into the article? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

yes you are getting there. Would suggest adding "..largely reflecting..." re the 94 constitution. Alternately, dropping mention altogether seems acceptable to all. I would suggest the wording above be the framework for the new section. I see no outstanding further issues barring general agreement?. Congrats to all on a relatively pain - free and productive dialogue. Irondome (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
You don't address my point, I find. Even if we accept your source as appropriate (and I remain to be convinced), I note that no Spanish position is mentioned. If anything, I find it actually strengthens my point: that the qualifications inherent in the positions of Latin American states still receive more weight than Spain's position does. And as such, we should give those qualifications more weight than we give the Spanish position. Kahastok talk 21:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
This is probably as good as it gets in terms of a version that all can broadly agree on without a resumption of edit warring. G has made significant compromises. Lets just all get up from the table and cash in our chips. Irondome (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
One problem, the C24 does not issue UN resolutions, it passes draft resolutions to the IV Committee, which if adopted are passed to the UN GA. The text above is misleading in pushing the common misconception used by Argentina that the two are one and the same. They are not. It needs to be fixed. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Have added "...draft resolutions have been forwarded to the IV cttee for consideration". Put sentence into past tense and added "on..the UK to..." Any better? I dont think it affects the main thrust of the wording in any way, but may resolve final issues. Irondome (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't the time at the moment to look at the sources, but do any of them support "most Latin countries"? If not, it might be better to use "many" or "a number of". -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

One wonders why the proposed ‘International dimension’ section drafts fail to account for that dimension at the early stage of the sovereignty dispute. Notably, the US position at that decisive time was not neutral. The USA strongly rejected the Argentine sovereignty pretensions and was prepared to support its position by military force. That US position and action played a key role in setting the basics of the sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina ever since. Apcbg (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


@Kahastok: the source is from the UK Parliament itself. If you wish to elevate it to some noticeboard to validate it, please do so. If what you are saying is that we should include more information about Latin American support to the Argentinian position to the section, I'd have no issues with that. We can mention explicitly UNASUR and/or Mercosur if you want and source it to the UK Parliament's article.
@Wee: according to the UN's own FAQ[6] and to this source (currently used in the section)[7] the C24 "makes recommendations to the General Assembly". I've amended the proposed version to make this more clear.
@Scjessey: yes, the UK Parliament's own article supports the "most" wording: Argentina and the Falklands, you can see the parts I pasted above in response to Kahastok if you don't want to go through the whole thing. The other source used[8] actually says "all" Latin American countries support Argentina (and mentions caveats for Brazil and Chile).
@Apcbg: the section is terribly short because Wee and Kahastok so demanded. The old version mentioned the US position in much more detail and even made a mention of the Monroe Doctrine. I'd have no problem in adding the info that was previously up, but you'd have to get W&K to agree to it.
Changes made: 1- made more clear that C24 resolutions are passed to the GA, 2- added info on GA's resolutions passed 3- changed "Since 1960 Argentina lobbies" to "Argentina annually lobbies" since we have no source (that I recall of) to back that there's been "lobbying" since the 60s and 4- made it clear the Spain's support was for the Argentinian position since it was not mentioned.
What say you? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Did you read my message? Because I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly have inferred "we should include more information about Latin American support to the Argentinian position to the section" going into Mercosur and UNASUR from my post.
I quote some of the qualifications to which I refer, from our agreed source:
  • "Though in principle all Latin American countries support Argentina’s claim, for the most part their support ends there."
  • "In calling for a nuclear-free South Atlantic... Argentina has crossed Brazil’s own ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons."
  • "the reality is that Chile would not like to see any sovereignty changes in South America"
  • "Argentina is firmly aware that Chile is not disposed to imperiling its special relationship with Great Britain over this row"
  • "Overall, the total absence of the Falklands issue in the final report of this year’s Summit of the Americas shows the region’s lukewarm response to appeals from Buenos Aires."
I repeat my previous message, which I have copy-pasted directly.
Even if we accept your source as appropriate (and I remain to be convinced), I note that no Spanish position is mentioned. If anything, I find it actually strengthens my point: that the qualifications inherent in the positions of Latin American states still receive more weight than Spain's position does. And as such, we should give those qualifications more weight than we give the Spanish position. Kahastok talk 19:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok:
  1. You can stop stressing the "agreed source" bit. The fact that you and Wee might have agreed to use that as a sole and primary source (why would be a good question) is completely irrelevant to me and the article.
  2. You can be not-convinced all you want about the UK Parliament's own article on the issue, it's still a very relevant source and one that absolutely can't be regarded as being pro-Argentinian. Again: take it to RS/N if you feel the need to do so.
  3. If you want to include the caveats that source mentions about Chile and Brazil, we will also be including the UK Parliament's own article mention about the overwhelming support to the Argentinian position from Latin American countries (including Brazil and Chile) If that is what you want to do then we should drop the authoritative voice and assign each claim to each source.
The fact that most if not all Latin American countries back the Argentinian position is impossible to dispute (countless regional summits, UN's C24 resolutions, endless expressions of support by each country separately, all of this can be sourced almost ad-infinitum). So once again: if you want to get into more detail about the support of Latin American countries for the Argentinian position and its possible caveats as stated by Chris Ljungquist, the section will have to be expanded and the claims assigned to each source. Is this what you want? Care to present a proposed version?
As I've said, I'm making a huge compromise here. The old version of the section should not have been removed since there was obviously no consensus (not to mention the malformed RfC itself) and the 72 hours impasse proposed by Irondome has long passed. If the final version of the section is going to take much longer (6 days and counting so far) I'll be restoring the old version until the new one can be agreed upon. Please don't take this as a threat, but it's only logical that we restore the old consensual version until the new one is finished. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Reminder - the C24 does not make "resolutions". It is a toothless committee that doesn't speak for the UN. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed.
Gaba, you say, "[p]lease don't take this as a threat". I do not see any way in which I can take it other than as a threat to disrupt the consensus-building process. I am further disappointed that you choose to withdraw your agreement to this source, the sole basis on which it was agreed to put any weight on this point at all. I believe that it has been agreed as a basis for this section by all other parties here, not just me and Curry Monster. These actions serve only to make it harder for us to attain the consensus for change from the status quo that you profess to want.
I note further, Gaba that you still fail to get my point - which is not a difficult concept to grasp in any sense - despite my having made it repeatedly. I shall try to spell it out to you again, but frankly if you are determined not to understand it I do not believe I can force you to.
The sources give the qualifications I describe a certain amount of weight. The sources give the Spanish position less weight. These two points are both accurate regardless of whether your source is included or not. Therefore, WP:WEIGHT requires that we give the qualifications more weight than we give the Spanish position. This means that we have three choices:
  1. We could mention neither.
  2. We could mention both, giving the qualifications greater weight than Spain's position.
  3. We could mention the qualifications but not Spain's position.
What we cannot do, is what is proposed: mentioning the point that is given lesser weight by the sources but refusing to mention the point that is given greater weight. And I reject your suggestion that what I suggest means a massive expansion to the point on Latin American countries - in the same way, this simply does not meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. Kahastok talk 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To re-iterate, there was agreement amongst everybody to use that source for weight. Kahastok makes a not unreasonable point that the support Gaba refers to amongst Latin America, as the source notes, is little more than lip service. Again the point has also been made by more than one editor, that consensus becomes less likely when you Gaba go back on your word. As far as I and others are concerned the clock stopped when you decided to take the weekend off.

Btw a source has been provided stating Argentina has lobbied since the 1960s, the source being the Argentine Government document referred to above. I chose that specifically because you couldn't reject it as a "British POV". What is really sad is seeing a return to the same behaviour, pretending no source provided when one has, going back on your word and a none too subtle threat to revert war if you don't get your own way. The only thing preventing a consensus emerging is your behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, what are you proposing exactly? Can you show us specifically what you have in mind? I'm not sure how to read your three choices. --Langus (t) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
@Scjessey: I've changed "draft resolutions" for "recommendations" which is verbatim what the C24 FAQ says[9] Is this better?
@Wee & Kahastok: let me break down what you propose. You propose we use a unique source written in what you yourselves called and WP:SPS to asses the weight of the mention of Latin American countries and Spain. Given that in that particular source Latin America is given more weight than Spain, then we should do the same in the section. But this is not what you propose. You propose we base the whole Latin American position exclusively on that source and disregard completely another much better and reliable source by the UK Parliament itself (among several others) also commenting on the position of Latin America (for some strange reason). So you want to use exclusively a source that downplays the Latin American backing of the Argentinian position and completely disregard any other source that clearly states a near full Latin American support for Argentina. Did I miss anything?
So here it goes again: if you want to quote that source on the Latin American support being "little more than lip service" (Wee dixit) then we assign it to the source (Chris Ljungquist) and we also quote the UK Parliament's article regarding Latin American support. You have absolutely no guideline to back your position of using only one source for the section, specially when another much better one is at our disposition. You only wish to do so because that particular source downplays the Latin American support for Argentina, nothing more. As you are well aware this is not acceptable.
@Wee & Kahastok: I did not "go back" on anything and you'd be wise to stop accusing me of such. As I stated I have no problem in giving more weight to Latin America's position (as that source you favor does) and to mention its weak support (?) clearly assigned to the source where it is coming from (Chris Ljungquist), as long as we mention the Latin American support as stated in the UK Parliament's article, assigned to it of course.
@Kahastok: please propose a version of what you want the section to look like and we can take it from there.
@Wee: Regarding the "Since 1960 Argentina lobbies" mention source, you mean this one[10]? I don't see where that is stated, could you point me to the relevant section/paragraph please?
@Wee: Irondome's 3 day impasse was proposed on the 31st. If you want to not count the weekend (even though everybody, including you, kept on discussing the matter) very well, we'll do so. That means today marks the end of the proposed period to come up with a consensus version. Tomorrow if we find ourselves still with no consensus, I'll be bringing back an old version of the section until the new one can be finished. As was clearly stated by the closing editor, there was never a consensus in that badly opened RfC to remove the old section. Sorry for the long response. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I wondered how long it would be till there was a resort to threats of restoring that section. When it seemed very close to a consensus text emerging this really isn't helping. No, you don't build consensus by issuing ultimatums. The discussion here is clear evidence the text that was there was giving undue weight to the issue.
Further, no, no one is down playing anything. There is a consensus for noting statements of support in Latin America. However, as noted this does not extend much beyond paying lip service through token acts. Your source doesn't refute the point. Both statements should be used, yes, but written in a neutral manner to portray an accurate picture.
Also, Irondome found that source I refer to, there was an agreement to use it for weight. Yes I did entertain doubts that it was an WP:SPS but Irondome took that to WP:RSN and found that paper was reliable based on the author bio. Please check if you don't believe me.
Yes, that is the source I meant and if you honestly cannot see that in there, its in the section preceding 1966 and beyond. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
We are not going back to the previous deadlock. We will get a version of the above shortened section agreed on and slotted into the article. Reverting to the disputed original section is not an option. If consensus was blurred the last time, it wont be again. Attitudes have hardened, especially as we were (and hopefully still are) very close to consensus here. Any unilateral steps taken by ANYONE will not go down well. Other eyes are watching this I do not doubt.
G, why did you change my edit in the final section? The part about the C24 passing resolutions to the IV cttee seems perfectly reasonable. Now there has been some static caused by well meaning contributors in the past 18 hrs or so on SA sources. I want to go past that. We must work ruthlessly on that final draft above. I appreciate that you have made serious compromises, but lets not blow it now. Lets nobody im[pose any deadlines afterwhich probably unwise and regrettable actions are taken. By anyone. Irondome (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I have also invited editor dpmuk to come over and take a look at progress so far and get a second pair of eyes on this. User dpmuk was the editor who closed down the last dispute process the group activated. Irondome (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome: I changed your edits to accommodate Wee's request in line with the C24 own FAQ about its purpose[11] and Scjessey's concern of the use of the word "resolutions" which I changed for "recommendations" again in line with the C24's own FAQ. I commend your calmed attitude, I think you are the only one keeping this from going really sour again.

@Wee and or Kahastok: please present the neutral edits you are proposing. There isn't a resort to threats, there's nothing wrong about restoring the old consensual version, which never should have been deleted, until the new one is finished. In any case I'll take Irondome's recommendation and hold off for now with the hopes of achieving a consensus soon.
About the "1960" statement, you mean the "Ruda report" mentioned in 2. Período 1945-1965? Ok, I've amended the proposed version to mention that. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Since it was getting a bit hectic going back and forth to edit the proposed version, I've moved it to its own section and left this one for comments. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I would ask Wee then, to reconsider the objections to the C24 IV commitee reference. I thought my wording was less potentially inflammatory. Any comments welcomed on that. Irondome (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here again on my talk page as it was feared that things may once again be getting out of control. Skim-reading the above I can see what may be causing this fear. It seems to me that we are very close to reaching a compromise that will have consensus support. It would seem a shame to not now get there given the effort that has gone into this. With this in mind I offer a few observations which may help that goal be reached.

Firstly threats to restore the previous section are unhelpful. I can understand the frustration that led to this but I strongly suspect that any such action will lead to reverting, edit wars, page protection and possibly blocks. This will in no way help the long term solution. With that in mind I urge patience and also suggest that some minimalistic version is agreed upon as soon as possible - it can always be added to as consensus is reached on the more contentious sections.

Secondly, I notice the reappearance of a couple of editors that were not so active when the discussions about the way forward etc were happening although they had previously been active in these discussion. I urge them to read some of the way forward discussions if they have not already and try to moderate their comments somewhat. It appears to me that is these editors reappearing that seem to have headed this discussion back towards a battleground and I hope this wasn't their intention, that they realise that this is, unintentionally, what they've caused and that they try to stop it getting any worse.

Thirdly, I notice that as things have deteriorated in the content discussion editors language towards each other has worsened. While this is very understandable it's not helping the situation. Please try to remember the final goal here no matter how frustrated you get.

Fourthly, consensus is not the same as universal agreement. Obviously everyone agreeing is the idea solution but I think that there are now enough editors here that a reasonable consensus could be formed without everyone agreeing. As such if there is a sticking point where one editor is being very firm but all other editors have agreed on a version then it may be best to simply accept that getting a universal agreement isn't going to happen but that there is still a consensus.

Finally please remember that whatever consensus version is inserted into the article it need not, and indeed should not, be the final version. It can still be changed, with consensus, especially if new sources are found, the situation changes or there is some other good reason. Dpmuk (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you taking the time to comment, most helpful. I've copy edited the current proposal. Can we please omit sources at this time as it makes the discussion rather difficult, when effectively we're just tweaking the text. We know the text is cited, so it doesn't really help matters. I've added a small caveat to address Kahostok's comments and before I am accused of WP:OR or WP:SYN I am trying to boil down several sentiments into a single pithy phrase. I hope this addresses the concern expressed and we won't go down the path of wikilawyering again. I believe the material is citable by the source we suggest. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Except that what you are doing is precisely WP:OR and WP:SYN Wee. We can't use Wikipedia's authoritative voice to express an opinion as a fact and we most definitely are not allowed to synthesize several sentiments into a single phrase. You know this very well and I'm surprised you are even proposing we do so here.
What does "but has not acted upon any C24 recommendation" mean? This can't be sourced as far as I'm aware and it definitely looks like WP:OR. If you argue it is not, please present the source which states that.
I've amended the section to address these issues, mainly assigned opinions to its authors and added the position of House of Commons analyst Miller regarding the international position. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
A) Mention of the Rudas report is fluff, the article doesn't need this information. I'm disappointed you feel the need to re-introduce it.
B) We've agreed we don't need a list of countries, so inserting one is again going backward not forward. Very disappointing to my mind.
C) The C24 makes recommendations to the IV committee, which if approved by the IV committee become draft resolutions, which if passed by majority vote in the GA become UN GA resolutions. My original comment wasn't WP:OR but a very reasonable summary. But I'll wait for comment.
D) I don't agree with your mention of WP:OR and WP:SYN, what is there is a precis, can we please avoid the accusations as its getting distinctly boring. However, I'll wait on others to comment but I do not accept your rewording for the reason it introduces a list of countries and Latin American institutions which is the polar opposite of what was agreed. It introduces the same material twice, I don't see the need for it at all.
Rather than continuously going back and forth, I've simply struck through fluff and unneeded material. I've added a very small amount of text to illustrate the difference. Lets let others comment eh? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
A) Wee, your own perception of something being "Fluff" is not a reason for leaving an important piece of information out. This report initiated the Argentinian "lobbying" at the UN and it's of utmost importance as it had a key role in the following GA resolution adopted (this can be sourced by the very Argentinian source you brought in) If you want to make an explicit mention of when the Argentine lobbying started then we must mention how it started (it takes up exactly 7 words to do so)
B) This group of countries is verbatim mentioned by the UK Parliament's own article and it does not need to be sourced separately since it can be sourced entirely by that article. I'll await comments from other editors on this.
C) As I've pointed out already, both this source and the C24's own FAQ state that that body issues "draft resolutions" or "recommendations" that it later elevates to the GA. Verbatim from the FAQ: "What does the Special Committee on decolonization do?...Makes recommendations to the General Assembly, which them approves resolutions reflecting developments in the Territories".
I did not find any mention of the IV committee anywhere, but if you have the source then present it and we can include that mention.
D) I've replaced the material that was mentioned twice so as to accommodate your request. And yes, what you attempted to do was without a doubt a breach of WP:OR and WP:SYN.
I've made some changes according to your concerns and added some comments myself. I agree that comments from other editors (specially neutral outsiders) would be needed. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, Venezuela has made very clear its intention of backing up Argentina if the issue should escalate to a war. This goes against Chris Ljungquist's analysis that the support "ends there" and should probably be mentioned too. I'll look up some sources. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the versions that people are proposing here. It's no good working on two independent versions in the same place, and I find the current practice of replacing the one with the other with each passing edit unhelpful and confusing. Could you both put your current wordings next to each other, please? And then could we all agree not to edit one another's texts, please? If anyone has a specific proposal to make on any particular text, they should either make their own section with a new text (and let's say one proposal per person as a rule) or quote a sentence and a new wording, without changing the text of the proposal they wish to change.

The current version under #Proposed version seems to be going backward. It's growing from the last time I saw it and I don't believe it should be based on the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. The list of countries that I thought we'd agreed to drop has been reintroduced. The list of regional summits that was gone has been reintroduced. The WP:WEIGHT in the sources simply doesn't support this. Kahastok talk 19:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: there is one proposed version located at #Proposed version. The growth is directly related to your (and Wee's) insistence that we introduce Chris Ljungquist's analysis which was counterbalanced with the UK Parliament's own article about the issue which mentions those summits and countries.
Wee also expanded on the UN's GA resolution mention (this could be taken out if you get his approval). The current version is short and easily sourced given that there is no need to source each countries position separately since they are all contained in the UK Parliament's article.
"The WP:WEIGHT in the sources simply doesn't support this". Which sources are you talking about? The WP:WEIGHT in the "Geopolitical Monitor" article and the UK Parliament's article actually point to a much bigger mention of those summits and the position of Latin American countries. The current version is a compromise in keeping those mentions to a minimum expression. If everyone keeps a unique version there will never be a consensus. If you have an issue with the current version explain it and give your reasons point by point please. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
For those of us who don't spend that much time here, I find it simply impossible to tell what is being said about what.
I accept the obvious that there is only one version at #Proposed Version - but it's been there for less than two hours. The text before that was completely different. If we're going to it like that we need evolutionary change to a point that we can all agree on. The revolutionary change that you made is inconsistent with that approach.
I don't agree that keeping them separate will mean that there can never be consensus. But even if I did, they are already separate. The fact that you're just replacing the one version with another, as opposed to making evolutionary changes, demonstrates the point. Better, in these circumstances, to have the versions next to each other, so that we can look for ways in which we can reconcile differences of opinion. My point is not that you or anyone else can't make proposals, but that there is a better way of doing it that will make it easier for everyone to follow the discussion and see where the points of difference really are.
I don't see that you can blame me for the fact that the whole thing is a lot longer by pointing out the weight disparity. I pointed out before that one legitimate option was to remove Spain altogether from the versions at the time. This would have resolved the weight issue entirely without increasing the length. Instead, we have lists of summits and lists of countries that I have repeatedly given reasoned objections to. Kahastok talk 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok: let's do this. Address the issues you have with the proposed version point by point like I did with the version(s) proposed by Wee and explain your reasons. That way we can narrow down what exactly you are opposing to and why and try to move forward towards a consensus. Can you do that please?
Currently Wee exposed 4 points which I responded to individually. From that I guess we can say we disagree on these key points (correct me if I'm mistaken):
  • The mention of the Ruda Report (Wee opposes as per "fluff")
  • The mention of those 5 non Latin American countries sourced to the UK Parliament's article. (Wee opposes as per ??)
  • The phrasing of the GM article and Latin American support. (he has reservations about it)
  • The lack of mention of the IV committee (I don't actually oppose but I've found no source to source its inclusion)
Do these points sum up your concerns too? Feel free to add your concerns if they are not included so we can pin the key disagreements. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Added facts that go against Ljungquist's opinion of Latin American support "ending there". I think the UN resolution quote should/could be shortened. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Shortened the proposed version to accommodate some issues (like mention of regional summits and mention of several countries) I've only left the two biggest countries mentioned by the UK Parliament's article (China and Russia) and removed all regional summits. Also shortened the UN mention which was not really necessary. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I deliberatley left your comments intact to allow others to comment, you've simply wiped mine out to overwrite them with your own text again. Even more disappointing to me is that rather than addressing the weight issue, using the method we agreed you're reverting to the past tactic of inserting a load of extraneous quotes giving undue weight to the Argentine side. Its exactly the same behaviour that has lead to a quite poisonous atmosphere on any discussion in which you take part. Its clear to me at least that your patria does not allow you to write neutrally on the subject.
You've ignored my comment, I said quite explicitly we should not be making lists of countries and there is no need to mention the House of Commons Report. Mention of the Rudas report was and is fluff, in a summary like this its simply extraneous detail. We don't need lists of countries, we agreed we didn't need lists of countries and yet again you go backwards to insert one. And frankly continuously accusing people of WP:OR and WP:SYN is being a WP:DICK, no need to continuously state this is your opinion. Take it to WP:NORN if you insist but I do not accept your opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

OK I've cut it down to what is actually agreed at this point. I still think Kahastok makes a not unreasonable point that needs to be addressed. Lets actually address that instead of moving backwards and modifying what is agreed. The text should be neutral and reflect what the source we agreed to use to address weight. This does not mean we revert to the same tactic of inserting a load of extraneous quotes as "balance". Wee Curry Monster talk 08:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with some of Wees points. The possible insertion of Chavezs' basically pariah state threatening to militarily support A is very dodgy. Also we must accept that A is unable to even send its navy into foreign ports without ships being impounded (the Ghanain v A navy training ship seizure incident ) or stuck for months in a foreign port because it cant get its generators fixed (the Corvette stuck in S Africa for 2 months because its generators broke down and the German manufacturers refusing to repair till they had money up front). Basically A is seems near bankruptcy, and its FI diplomatic offensive appear to be a more pacific tactic of 1982. Play the FI card. I think that deserves a mention in terms of As motives at this time. We agreed on using the Lindquist article as a basic shape for the narrative structure of the section, and I thought that was agreed. I am still in basic consensus with your new 17 times smaller version, but any expansion of SA support would be counterproductive I feel.
It is strange that in the 90s A-UK relations warmed considerably, despite the 94 constitutional amendement. Now there is a deeply cold diplomatic war in progress. The political and economic motivations of As present administration re the dispute are wide open to exploration via solid sources. And the smell of oil in the air. I wouldnt advocate expanding on this aspect of the dispute, but it is a dimension that we in this group should not airbrush away. Irondome (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Says Martín Rodríguez Yebra in Argentina's La Nación:
“Europa jamás cuestionó (y hasta avaló en la legislación comunitaria) la soberanía británica sobre el archipiélago.” (“Europe never questioned (and even supported with EC legislation and aid) the British sovereignty over the Islands.”
So much for the alleged EU ‘neutrality.’ Apcbg (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Ok, some comments:
@Wee: just to make it clear in case it was not (thought I've said it quite a number of times already), I believe your position that a single source should be used to asses the weight of a whole section in an article is absurd. I really don't understand how you think you could maintain this argument if you were called to do so (like at ANI for example) given that there are numerous other sources out there to asses the issue and its weight. Once again and for the billionth time: I agreed to use the GM source as a source to asses weight, not as the only source to do so. I never agreed not to include countries if their position could be reliably sourced and I still don't. I never agreed to chop the section to a fraction of its original length, I'm compromising as a sign of good faith after you and Kahastok deleted the old one without consensus of any kind. What you and Kahastok might have agreed is immaterial to me, you two backing each other edits is a given around here.
As I've explained, this is a ridiculous position you've assumed. This is WP, we use sources. Lots of them. What you and Kahastok have done throughout this exchange, stressing the use of a unique source when lots more are available, will certainly be remembered in future discussions.
@Irondome: again what we might make of the issue is completely irrelevant. Our own opinions/analysis really couldn't matter less here in WP. The mention of Venezuela military support and Mercosur banning ships with FI flags was put there to counterbalance the opinion expressed by the analyst at the GM article claiming Latin American support was little more than "lip service" as Wee said. It is clearly not, and the actions (facts not opinions) of those countries proves it. In any case, since Wee took out that opinion there's no need to introduce those facts. Oh and I'm completely open to explore Argentina's and British interests in the region (ie: oil) You'd have to get W&K to agree to expand the section though.
So, regarding the section proposed by Wee:
1) You presented a source that states how Argentina lobbies "Since 1964" at the C24. That very same source explains that the lobbying started with the Ruda report (or Ruda statement), verbatim:
If you want to mention when the lobbying started, we mention how it did. Mentioning it takes up exactly 7 words and quite frankly saying that it is "extraneous detail" when it is the reason we can source the lobbying starting when it did is absurd.
2) "bearing in mind the interests of the Falkland Islanders". Here's resolution 43/25, the last GA resolution put forward in 1988, as you will see there's no mention of the islanders. Here's resolution 2065 the first one presented in 1965, which states:
Things to note: 1- the resolutions are all called "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" which should definitely be mentioned given that it recognizes the spanish name (not a minor detail) 2- The current wording of the section makes it look like the islanders are mentioned in all (or at least the last) resolution by the GA when they are actually never mentioned (the population is) 3- Why did the GA presented about a dozen resolutions calling for dialog? Why does the C24 repeatedly keeps calling for dialog? This "call for dialog" is mentioned but we never say why. This is a serious shortcoming in the section, a casual reader will not understand why so many calls for negotiations keep being presented and no actual negotiation is ever done. This needs to be mentioned.
Given these caveats, I've amended the section accordingly. Let's try to pin down the key issues we disagree on and try to come to an agreement. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
One more source] to asses the international position and yet another one that mentions China's position. I think this country should be mentioned given its importance as one of (if not the) most powerful nations in the world. The support is 100% clear so adding it would not cause any issues regarding sourcing and/or vague statements of support. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah well lads, things could be worse.
Lets move things on. I suggest we have a vote, based on the most consensual version that has been presented so far. As the admin/ed who kindly popped over to add a few words indicated, getting at least a version into the vacant section should be addressed ASAP. At least there will then be some something there that we can further refine. Having them stuck in the garage so to speak, isnt helping progress in the sense that we are having the luxury of an interesting debate, without actually getting the section to to the wider world. So, thoughts on the best version please Irondome (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Although I fully agree with Irondome on the need to have a version in the article ASAP I'm not sure a vote is the path to go. Wikipedia in general dismisses votes as a poor substitute for a good discussion. This said, the discussion has dragged for quite some time now.
I do not think the current one is the best version possible (I'd like to add quite some more information to it) but I find it acceptable enough to be included as is (properly sourced of course). I'm afraid W&K will not agree with me and I would dare to venture which points specifically they will argue that need to be taken out:
  1. China's position
  2. the Ruda statement'
  3. the title of the UN GA ("Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)")
  4. UK's refusal to negotiate against the islanders wishes
I've compromised a great deal and accepted going from the old section to this one several (!) times smaller. Given that I've clearly stated the reasons as to why those 4 points are of relevance to the section (and add at most three sentences to it), I believe my position has been very flexible throughout this whole thing. Hopefully we can agree to put this version up and continue the editing from within the article as Irondome wisely proposes. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason why we don't generally do votes is that there are generally many possible options. A rewording, or change in emphasis, selective removal or rebalancing per WP:WEIGHT generally falls in the middle of a black-and-white vote.

I regard the text under "Proposed version" not as "the most consensual version" but as Gaba's own current personal preferred version. How different it is from Curry Monster's preferred version, I have no idea. What other objections have been raised, I have no idea. What the points currently in contention or under discussion are, similarly I have no idea. I have no idea because when I asked that we work to a system that would allow us to answer these questions at a glance, you refused.

I have objections to the current version under "proposed version". I see lots fluff in there that I do not believe is justified per WP:WEIGHT. But right now you're insisting we run blind, which is ridiculous. I oppose any move to a vote, or choice between specific points, while those who are choosing are not allowed to see all of the proposed alternatives. Kahastok talk 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I just want to quote a few comments from WP:FILIBUSTERS, yes I know some will comment that its inappropriate to comment on editor behaviour but bear with me.


Just in the last couple of hours, consider some of the behaviour here [12] and again [13], I ask what is the point in addressing any comment, when the same point is repeated again and again. There is a complaint above on user behaviour, accusing others of refusing to move. If you'd been able to see the text as its evolved, it would become quite apparent that indeed those people have moved, they've compromised, they've attempted to find a common ground. The only reason consensus has proved elusive is one editor has not.

I next want to draw attention to a couple of news reports that have been a hot topic for the last couple of days. When I say hot, front page news in Argentina, about the 5/6 th in the uk and barely worth a mention anywhere else.

First of all a report on statements issued by Hector Timmerman, [14]. He stated:


Well not exactly true but if you look at the edits one editor has been espousing for some time, you can discern a particular agenda to impose precisely this sentiment in this article. What I found interesting was an editorial in LA NACION [15], an Argentine newspaper. Translating the relevant paragraph:



Now dragging myself to the point. Gaba p would like to see the article presenting the official position expressed by Timmerman. The article needs the neutral POV expressed in La Nacion.

I would hope this achieves its intended purpose of letting Gaba P understand that he needs to put his POV to one side if he wishes to edit wikipedia.

So addressing the same points again:

  1. As has been pointed out there is no need to list a whole list of countries who you claim supports Argentina. As has been repeatedly pointed out the extent of that support is little more than lip service as the editorial in La Nacion points out.
  2. There is no need to mention the Argentine ambassador to the UN in 1964, it adds no material understanding to the article.
  3. There is actually no need to mention the title of the resolution - look at the name of the article. Trying to claim I am suppressing mention of the Spanish name rings hollow when you realise you're accusing the editor responsible for inserting the Spanish name into articles.
  4. The UK position on the Falklands issues is already in the article. The article currently states:


There is no need to mention it again. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Ok Wee, leaving aside your personal attacks (one more time), let me address your points.
  1. Why exactly you want to assign that much weight to one analyst in a news article but refuse to mention (for example) China's position which is far more important in an international context, would be a good question. We all know the answer though.
  2. You want to dismiss the analysis by a writer for the British House of Commons and instead give relevance to a single quote by a random journalist. Again, your intentions are crystal clear.
  3. Have you suddenly forgotten about WP:NOTNEWS Wee? You know, that guideline you've used so many times to keep content out of WP? How do you think that affects an article written literally yesterday?
  4. By your own standards of weight, how exactly does the mention of that journalist fit into the section?
Of course your version is unacceptable. I'd urge you to take out the mention of that journalist if you have any desire of ever reaching a compromise (you can pick a reason out of the ones I've mentioned)
Further comments:
  • There is no "list" of countries being mentioned, only China which is a major player (like the US)
  • We mention at least three times that there are "calls for negotiation" and you don't think it's relevant to mention why there are no negotiations happening? The fact that a mention is buried inside the article helps your argument very little.
  • I'm not mentioning the "Argentine ambassador" but the statement/report that initiated Argentina's lobbying as you wanted to include. As you very well know that report had a major impact on the UN and the following resolution.
Anyway, you are of course aware of these issues and I'd ask you to reconsider your version in view of them. If this is the end of the line regarding your "compromise", then I guess it's time to raise the issue to some relevant noticeboard. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, regarding our WP:WEIGHT discussion which Wee himself elevated at WP:NPOVN ("Establishing Weight and Due"), I'd missed the comment an un-involved editor made on the issue about 6 days ago. Want to know what he said verbatim? Here it goes:
How about that Wee? What should we do about the outcome of this noticeboard request and the section at hand? This pretty much changes the whole scene wouldn't you say? I'll await your comments. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster translated: "But so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’..." from here.

This is incorrect. The correct idea is "But so far Argentina, [in real terms | in practice | despite Timerman's statement], has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause, <no maybe whatsoever here> except in Latinamerica and some emerging countries.

Lip service means 'giving approval or support insincerely'. This is not implied by the editorial article, on the contrary: the diplomatic support in Latin America is explicitly given as a point in favor of Timerman.

I agree with Kahastok that this way of working is getting impossible to follow... --Langus (t) 01:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the criticism of my translation, for a start it wasn't mine, it was done by a professional linguist in Uruguay [16]. The relevant phrase is "más allá de las palabras" and as you can see here, it can be translated literally as beyond the words but is used in many contexts. No I don't see it as incorrect.
@Gaba - no it doesn't change anything, the comment is about sourcing not weight. There was no discussion as you quite effectively disrupted outside comment.
As you demand I respond to every "point" you raise.
  1. We agreed to use that source for weight, it was an agreement to move forward. This was a mutual agreement on all parts, not something imposed by me as you insinuate. Are you going back on your word?
  2. I am not dismissing an analysis, I point out you were mentioning the same thing twice. This is a strawman, criticising something I never said.
  3. Argumentative nonsense, I used a recent article for a source on commentary on the subject at hand. This is nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS, which is about reporting recent events.
  4. It is an example, expressing the sentiment of comments expressed by a number of commentators and you know that I would normally just put the comments into context but from experience with you I knew you wouldn't accept that, you'd insist on listing the commentator and then put in a load of extraneous comments as "balancing the POV". If you agree with the former I'm happy to do it but it would help the discussion if you avoided your normal "damning me if I do and damning me if I don't" approach to every tiny detail.

As to the rest, I refer you to my previous answer, argumentatively repeating the same points ad nauseum is not discussing. Take it to WP:DRN if you insist but honestly and frankly you're wasting people's time over trivia. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course Wee, the outcome of the ticket has to be disregarded since it did not turn out in your favor. The RfC did not turn out in your favor too, remember? There's really no point in arguing like this with you anymore, your constant ethical contortions are becoming so clear I don't think I need to keep pointing them out. Let's just try to put the most acceptable version up and then continue editing from inside the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You got it wrong, that part is not a translation: it isn't enclosed in quotes. Pay close attention to how the quotes are used, how the article starts, etc. "Beyond words" could be a correct translation; "lip service" certainly isn't. Who is the author of the MercoPress article, by the way? --Langus (t) 00:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll / comments

I suggest that a straw poll is not the way to go right now, as it would be disruptive for reaching consensus. Further, I fear you got the translation wrong. See my comments above. --Langus (t) 01:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Please no further comments here. I propose this is strictly an area for drafts. I will create a seperate comments section for each draft inserted.Irondome (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Useful sources

A high-quality secondary source that can be usefully mined (apologies if previously used) - Hoare, Liam; Jan 11, 2013 Falklands Redux: Is President Kirchner South America's Biggest Troll?, The Atlantic. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Likewise The Guardian's resource, created on 3 January 2013 and updated: The Falkland Islands: everything you ever wanted to know in data and charts --Wikiain (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  2. ^ {UK Parliament}
  3. ^ Argentina and the Falklands, Jan 2012, UK Parliament.
  4. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  5. ^ The Falkland Islands and the UK v Argentina Oil Dispute: Which Legal Regime, Alice Ruzza, 2011, Goettingen J. Int'l L. 71.
  6. ^ DECLARACION ESPECIAL SOBRE LA CUESTION DE LAS ISLAS MALVINAS, UNASUR communique, Nov 2012
  7. ^ Malvinas: nuevo apoyo de la Unasur, La Nacion, Dec 2012
  8. ^ Boudou: "Hubo rechazo explicito de UNASUR a referéndum de Malvinas", agepeba, Nov 2012
  9. ^ Unasur summit rejects Falklands' referendum and wants to limit 'vulture funds', agepeba, Dec 2012
  10. ^ OAS Declarations: Up to 2005, 2008, 2009 (in Spanish)
    Press (2006): "Unánime apoyo de la OEA al reclamo de la Argentina por las Malvinas". Infobae.com. 6 May 2002. Retrieved 15 March 2010.
    http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-041/12
  11. ^ a b "XX Ibero American Summit: What happened". momento24.com. 4 December 2010. Retrieved 29 December 2010.
  12. ^ (in Spanish)Special Communiqué on the Falkland Islands Question – [segib.org SEGIB]
  13. ^ Declaration on "The issue of the Malvinas Islands"
  14. ^ a b 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, Special Committee on Decolonization. General Assembly. UN.org. June 2002-2012
  15. ^ Apoyo de España por Malvinas; sobre Repsol, sólo entrelíneas. Ámbito Financiero, 23 Feb 2012
  16. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  17. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768
  18. ^ "Malvinas dispute a bilateral issue which is not included in the EU agenda". MercoPress. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
  19. ^ a b United Press International article EU stays clear of Falkland Islands oil dispute on 5 April 2010, retrieved on 20 February 2012
  20. ^ "U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". U.S. State Department. 19 January 2012. PRN: 2012/087. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
  21. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  22. ^ Argentina and the Falklands, Jan 2012, UK Parliament.
  23. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  24. ^ The Falkland Islands and the UK v Argentina Oil Dispute: Which Legal Regime, Alice Ruzza, 2011, Goettingen J. Int'l L. 71.
  25. ^ DECLARACION ESPECIAL SOBRE LA CUESTION DE LAS ISLAS MALVINAS, UNASUR communique, Nov 2012
  26. ^ Malvinas: nuevo apoyo de la Unasur, La Nacion, Dec 2012
  27. ^ Boudou: "Hubo rechazo explicito de UNASUR a referéndum de Malvinas", agepeba, Nov 2012
  28. ^ Unasur summit rejects Falklands' referendum and wants to limit 'vulture funds', agepeba, Dec 2012
  29. ^ OAS Declarations: Up to 2005, 2008, 2009 (in Spanish)
    Press (2006): "Unánime apoyo de la OEA al reclamo de la Argentina por las Malvinas". Infobae.com. 6 May 2002. Retrieved 15 March 2010.
    http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-041/12
  30. ^ (in Spanish)Special Communiqué on the Falkland Islands Question – [segib.org SEGIB]
  31. ^ Declaration on "The issue of the Malvinas Islands"
  32. ^ Ruda Report, José María Ruda, "Subcommission III of the Special Committee of the United Nations for the Application of Resolution 1514 (XV)", 1964
  33. ^ Antecedentes, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto
  34. ^ [17]
  35. ^ http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/UN/UN-LIST.HTM
  36. ^ Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), UN General Assembly Resolution
  37. ^ Apoyo de España por Malvinas; sobre Repsol, sólo entrelíneas. Ámbito Financiero, 23 Feb 2012
  38. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  39. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768
  40. ^ "Malvinas dispute a bilateral issue which is not included in the EU agenda". MercoPress. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
  41. ^ "U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". U.S. State Department. 19 January 2012. PRN: 2012/087. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_13&oldid=954533832"