Jump to content

Talk:Self-determination/Archive 3

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

POV Disputation

The passive voice of so many critical phrases is the first clue that this article has serious POV problems. Another clue is that "the principle" of self determination is distinct from the phrase "self determination" or its articulaton as such but all those are conflated. The history of the principle of self determination is objectively as old as human social organization itself. Finally, Woodrow Wilson's "southern heritage" being addressed at such length -- amounts to little more than an ad hominem attack on the concept and principle of self determination. The fact that all of these violations of clarity and accuracy point to a devaluation of self determination makes a strong case that the article needs a complete rewite. --Jim Bowery 18:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC

This is true, but, when the new page is created, or reconstructed, please make a general definition section at the very begining to build upon durring the rest of the sectons, one i have found to be relable is the one from dicitionary.com.

President Wilson did not oppose the Mandate for Palestine that was a trusteeship under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant. But what was proposed was not sovereignty of a minority but reserving sovereignty for a minority until they achieved a majority by immigration. Until that time legislation and administration would be carried out by a "mandatory power" such as England for Palestine who would have legal dominion over the political or national rights to Palestine. In Syria and Mesopotamia sovereignty was reserved for the current population until they were ready to exercise sovereignty. The mandatory power was to heed the wishes, desires and interests of the current population in Syria and Mesopotamia. But in the Mandate for Palestine, Jewish immigration was an obligation of the mandatory power until the Jews achieved a majority of population in Palestine and its advisor was to be the Zionist organization that would be a source of the wishes, interests and desires of World Jewry. Compare the mandates. The text for each mandate is online. Wallace Edward Brand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.168.71 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The problems complained about in the 2005 comment seem to be fixed. The more recent comment makes clear to me there should be some differentiation between self-determination of existing populations and colonial powers permitting new immigrants to grab more than half the land, when they own less than 10%. Certainly an issue not covered in the Israel-Palestine section. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Article issues

This page appears to have become a list of independence movements and territorial disputes rather than dealing with the issue of self-determination as it applies to individual cases. Some of the territories included in the list do not even have any text to explain why the principle of self-determination is important in each case, or the text does not address the subject of self-determination. I suggest re-titling the "Current movements" section as "The principle of self-determination in individual cases" or something shorter with the same meaning, and deleting all examples given that do not address self-determination.

It is quite possible for an independence movement to have nothing to do with self-determination of the people living there - Manchukuo becoming independent, for example, or the South African Bantustans. Many cases where self-determination is exercised either result in the the status quo being re-affirmed (e.g., The Falklands and Gibraltar) or in regional autonomy. Self-determination is not the same thing as independence and should not be treated as such. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, since no-one has commented here, I guess that means they are OK with me deleting all examples that do not touch on self-determination per se but instead talk only about independence and autonomy movements, right? FOARP (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with the removals you made. Most of those items were either completely unsourced (or very poorly sourced) and/or unrelated to the Self-determination principle, so good work. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Editor wishes the article to claim that the settlers of the Falkland Islands in 1833 were expelled during the Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands in January 1833. This is an Argentine claim, but is rejected by historians as not having any factual basis. In fact, the record shows that the islanders were encouraged to stay by the British commander in January 1833, that many were still on the islands when Charles Darwin arrived two months later, that several islanders were involved in a murder case that August, and that no further islanders even arrived until the 1840s. The article Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833), and the sources contained within it, demonstrate these points.

The claim concerned boils down to the argument that these individuals - gauchos and their leaders, men, women and children - either walked thousands of miles through hostile territory and then swam over 300 miles across some of the most dangerous seas in the world, all within the space of eight weeks - and never told anyone about it. Or that there was magic involved - a Star Trek transporter perhaps? Neither, I think you'll agree, is remotely credible. Kahastok talk 20:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


I'll say this loud and clear: the distinction between garrison and "civilian" population is intrinsically pro-British POV. It's basically nitpicking on official statements by Argentina in order to somehow cast doubts on the fact that Argentina as a nation was expelled from the islands.
Many sources make no such distinction, and some even say that the community or the inhabitants were expelled. I repeat: the distinction is only remarked in British-POVed literature. To most authors, the garrison expelled was in itself a valid population or settlement, equivalent to the British military garrison that lived in Saunders Island in the 1760-1770s, and on which the British claim is largely based. If not, how do you explain this dichotomy?
My point is demonstrated by the apparent "clumsily" or "careless" treatment with which many reliable historians address the subject:
  • Reisman, W.M. "The struggle for the Falklands". The Yale Law Journal (93): 287. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders.
  • Escude, Carlos. Las Malvinas serán argentinas. El Guardian. Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right.
  • Weisburd, A. Mark (1997). Use of Force: The Practice of States Since World War II. Penn State University Press. p. 53. The Argentines inhabiting the islands in 1833 were replaced by British colonists, whose descendants were the only inhabitants of the islands by 1982. -- Do note that this contradicts your idea that "the population has existed since the 1820s"
  • Korman, Sharon (1996). The Right of Conquest : The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. Oxford University Press. p. 105. In 1833, a small British warship, the HMS Clio, sailed to the Falkland Islands, threatening force against the Argentinian settlement. Although Britain argued that its measures did not amount to a use of force, there is no doubt that force was used, and that it was Britain's use of force which led to the withdrawal of the Argentine presence from the islands.
Proposal for the second paragraph:
Which leads me to the secondary issue (but not less important): what objection do you have to the sentence "Argentina claims the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination" that you keep on reverting out?
Also, I ask you to please transcribe the paragraph(s) that supports this: "The population has existed for over nine generations, since the 1820s". Because, as I noted, I pretty much doubt about it and I cannot find it in the provided references. --Langus (t) 21:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


All you're demonstrating is that there's a lot of sloppy research out there. These are documets that, for the most part, are Argentine-biased or not describing the subject at hand. Sadly, the fact is that many have unquestioningly taken the Argentine claims as fact without sanity-checking them.
If they looked at the facts, the authors would doubtless see that a sanity check is failed - that two months after Britain supposedly "expelled the small Spanish-speaking community, and banned migration from the mainland", Spanish-speakers with exactly the same names and life stories as those supposedly expelled, with intimate knowledge of pre-1833 events on the islands, met Darwin on the islands. Six months after that there was a murder case among the Spanish-speakers - ironically one of the possible motives for the murders was actually that the British inducements to the Argentine settlers to stay on the islands (the promises made by Onslow, not honoured by pre-1833 settler Brisbane, who remained in charge) did not materialise.
When it comes down to it, your above insistence that the population were removed - a claim you made in your edit - is pure POV and demonstrably false. And I note despite your drawing a distinction above (the same distinction that you claim is POV), your edit did not claim that some of the population was removed. It claimed that the Argentine population was removed, a point that we know not to be true.
This is not a matter of opinion. Either you accept that the claim is false, or you claim that the islanders pre-1833 had supernatural powers.
And let's remember that this garrison that you claim was a permanent population had been on the islands for less than two months, that within a week of landing they had mutinied and killed their commanding officer, and that the British arrived before the mutiny was quelled. The garrison was, in all likelihood, headed back to Buenos Aires pretty quickly matter what the British did - for trial and probable execution. Reliable sources draw a distinction between the settlers and the garrison. So should we.
And finally, your proposed edit claims that the current islanders were taken there by the United Kingdom. The UK government of this era did not routinely go out of their way to colonise places - otherwise modern India, East Africa and Hong Kong would look very different. The ancestors of most Falkland Islanders, I believe you will find, arrived of their own accord - some in recent decades, some in the nineteenth century, and yes, some as descendants of the pre-1833 colonists. Kahastok talk 23:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


"Either you accept that the claim is false, or you [are silly?]" -- This is a false dilemma, because my point is that focusing on this claim and ignoring other expressions that both Argentina and reliable sources use on a regular basis (see examples above) is falling in a British-POVed trap. If I'm following you correctly, you don't want Wikipedia to mention that Falkland Islanders (to Argentina and to some reliable sources, NOT TO EVERYONE) are not an aboriginal population. Not even if correctly attributed! And that, my friend, is called WP:CENSORship. I remind you:
"It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." WP:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete
So far you haven't presented a reliable source stating that the population can be considered the same one that inhabited the islands in 1820. You keep on saying that "some are descendants of the pre-1833 colonists" but it seems you still can't prove it.
As for the use of the expression "subsequent colonization", it is based on the fact that in 1833 there were 11 people left after the murders, and 287 inhabitants were officially acknowledged by the UK Government in 1851, less than 20 years afterwards. Also, that's the expression used by Barry M. Gough in "The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843" (1990). --Langus (t) 21:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The above point is faintly extraordinary given that only one of us tried to (in your words) censor the article by removing Argentina's claim that the islanders aren't "aboriginal". And it wasn't me.
We shouldn't be making the claim in Wikipedia's voice of course - before we did that we would first have to work out what this is supposed to mean in the first place - and the article should be improved to more clearly put this in Argentina's voice.
That said, I find little case for your general claim that it is banned censorship to avoid misleading our readers by making claims that are demonstrably or probably false.
I do have a problem with making the claim or suggestion that the UK government had a policy in the nineteenth century of settling the islands with its own citizens in order to its arguments in a sovereignty dispute a hundred years later, based on a doctrine that it did not even recognise. I find this notion particularly unlikely given that no such policy was in place in far more significant territories (such as India or East Africa). Far more likely that the current population came about as a result of a natural course of events or in the course of private enterprise (as with Vernet's settlers).
If you wish to believe that survivors of the Gaucho murders decided en masse to castrate themselves and their children, that's your business. It's not difficult to identify pre-1833 families who remained on the islands by name. Nobody is claiming that there was no migration to the islands post-1833, only that there was not a total depopulation followed by a supernatural return as you have, in effect, claimed. Kahastok talk 12:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


No need for castration when you have a constant flow of ships that can "make them dissappear" from the Islands (magic!). You do realize that you're arguing against sources, not me, right?
  • Royle, Stephen A. (1985). "The Falkland Islands, 1833-1876: The Establishment of a Colony". The Geographical Journal. 151 (2). The Royal Geographical Society: 204–214. When another census was taken in 1842 olny 10 of the 1838 population were still present; of the three families and seven single persons enumerated as settlers in 1838, only 2 persons remained in 1842. Both had entered Government employment, one as a gaucho, the other, a woman who had been on the islands for at least 20 years, as a 'washerwoman, milkwoman and occasional gaucho'.
So far as I can see, there were no "pre-1833 families" left on the islands after a few years. In fact, excluding Carmelita and her two children, there were no families left by the time of the murders: the last ones left with Pinedo. Antonina Roxa appears to be the only settler who remained from those days. It's not hard to see how reliable sources can analyze all this data and summarize the situation with the expressions provided above.
Finally, I believe attribution is pretty clear in my last proposal. I'm open to suggestions, tho. --Langus (t) 15:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You're still arguing for castration. One person can have dozens of great-great-great-great-grandchildren. In any case, what you are describing directly contradicts your previous claim that all of these people were removed.
Your latest proposal, as I noted before, implies that the UK government had a policy in the nineteenth century of settling the islands with its own citizens in order to improve its arguments in a sovereignty dispute well over hundred years later, that it was not even aware of at the time, based on a doctrine that it did not even recognise. I object to such implication being included. Kahastok talk 12:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


"in order to improve its arguments in a sovereignty dispute well over hundred years later" etc <-- this part is completely straw man argument out of your imagination, but the cited paper does back the existence of such a policy:
  • "In the Caribbean in the eighteenth century, African slaves had been brought in to work, taking the place of the largely exterminated aboriginal peoples, but the Falklands climate is much harsher and, by the time the Islands were being developed by Britain from the early 1830s, slavery was regarded in an unfavorable light and it was abolished within the Empire in 1838. [...] The FI were considered as a penal colony in August 1840 when the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners reported on the economical prospects of the Islands. [...] The penal colony proposal was not taken up and so the peopling of the Islands so neccessary to make the colony viable and to mantain British occupation had to be carried out by the only other option, voluntary emigration of free settlers from Britain."
  • "Moody was positively in favour of encouraging emigration from Britain."
  • "Until late 1840s newcomers tended to be persons fleeing from trouble on the mainland of South America or those having been cast ashore at Stanley by sea captains as being surplus to requirements, 'but few have arrived from England' complained Moody."
  • "In 1846 British settlers, specifically Shetland Islanders, had been promised the Falkland Islands by Uruguayan bussinessman S.F. Lafone, as an integral part of his scheme to purchase large areas of land (the southern part of East Falkland is still called Lafonia) and manage wild cattle. Moody had, in 1842, recommended that a company should be set up to manage the cattle and, of course, he wanted British settlers. Unfonrtunately, Lafone's operation was not a success. Instead of properly farming the cattle, his men just slaughtered them and, far from bringing British settlers, he sent paupers from the River Plate area. In 1847, 106 of the total population of 270 were in his employ. Governor Rennie's dissatisfaction with Lafone's operation had led him to ask directly for settlers from Britain, and in October 1849 30 Chelsea Pensioners with their wives and families arrived. Wooden cottages shipped from England were erected for them and each was granted 10 acres of land."
  • "This was undoubtely helped by the opening up of West Falkland for settlement in 1866. Within a year all its land, except that in government reserves, had been taken up and [...] this island and its offshore islands became important in the wool trade and were colonized in a way which Moody would have approved, largely with settlers from Britain."
I'm taking note of this unreasonable behavior of yours towards properly sourced information for future reference. --Langus (t) 02:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between encouraging settlement and actively bringing settlers over.
The first quote does not describe an emigration that took place. The second implies encouraging emigration, not actively bringing settlers over. The third makes it clear that this encouragement was not a matter of actively bringing settlers over. The fourth describes people migrating as part of a private enterprise from Argentina and Uruguay, which has nothing to do the UK government actively taking settlers from the UK. The fifth describes British people settling West Falkland but does not imply that the government took them over.
Your source describes the settlement being encouraged, but does not imply that the settlers were "brought by the United Kingdom" as you wish to claim. Of course, we must then note that source does not appear to have a name or author.
I note that threatening people is uncivil and suggest you refrain from further such breaches of behavioural policy Kahastok talk 20:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Argentina makes the specific claim that in 1833, the population was expelled and replaced by a British population. The text I note has imposed by edit warring into the article and from the discussion above without consensus. There is a certain amount of sophism in which it is written but it is essentially making those claims. I see further sophism above to infer that sources which make no reference to the population support this claim. This is in fact WP:OR and WP:SYN and the sources fail to verify the claim made. The overwhelming weight of historical sources notes this claim to be untrue and to allow a bald statement of the Argentine claim to stand without the rebuttal in the overwhelming weight of historical literature is simply lying by omission. I am tagging the section for failing WP:NPOV. And I would suggest you are more civil in your edit summaries. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. This is not a claim of the Argentine government; many reliable sources like Reisman, Escude, Weisburd, Ferguson, Korman, Chun, Rock, etc (see my reply above, dated 24 December 2013) make these kind of statements. Even the Argentine government, in official statements will use interchangeably "population", "authorities", "settlers", etc.
  2. The discussion above was not about the inclusion of current text, so your accusation is incorrect. What's more, it's not even authored by me. Check the page history next time you'll assert something like that, to avoid poisoning a discussion that is already difficult.
  3. The section currently describes what the Argentine goverment claims and what the British government claims. Period. You are calling for rebuttal: your judgment of what is true or untrue is the breach to WP:NPOV as it would constitute editorializing. "To be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so".[4] As such, it is ironic that you are tagging the section with WP:NPOV just because you can't editorialize its content.
As I proved above, countless reliable, secondary sources make not such distinction. Your notion of "the overwhelming weight of historical literature" is the real WP:SYN here. I suggest you check out the use of the word "colonization" to describe what happened from 1841 onwards, used by impeccable sources like the ones exposed above (Gough, Royle) and even by the Foreign Office & the House of Commons themselves, at that time. --Langus (t) 23:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That is incorrect the specific claim made by the Argentine Government is that an exisiting Argentine population was expelled to be replaced by a British population. The problem as you well know is this is simply untrue and none of the sources you mention contradict this, Reisman in particular does not as you assert claim this, in fact the same article you reference clarifies earlier that only the garrison was expelled. In that case, your comments deliberately misrepresent what the sources says by omitting one of the key details. As noted by User:Kahastok above, the fact that other sources repeat the Argentine claim does not of its own justify removing the statement by other secondary sources citing historical fact that the Argentine claim is untrue. These are simply secondary sources for the Argentine claim.
The fact that this is historically untrue is commented on in numerous secondary source. You allege this is a solely British POV and for that reason have actively sought to remove this information from the article citing WP:NPOV. That is of itself a violation of the policy, which requires all significant viewpoints to be represented. However, your reasoning is also specious, this is not a "British" POV, Gustafson is an American academic whose work on the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute is hardly sympathetic to the British position and even he comments on the fact it is untrue. It is simply a fact that the Argentine Government claim is contradicted by the historical record.
Your claom that this a "British" POV is also an example of WP:OR of the worst kind (you have no secondary source to make this claim) and on the basis on your own original research you are removing material from the article. Ironically you quote a highly relevant section of NPOV, "To be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them." Precisely so, this is indeed part of the debate made by academics such as Gustafson but no one knows about it as you insist it is removed and have edit warred for years to suppress this. You are the editor editorialising here and deciding what to include based on your own personal preferences.
I have tagged the article to highlight the fact that a significant viewpoint is missing, this is an entirely appropriate use of such a tag. As regards your suggestion of poisoning a discussion, [5] an edit summary of "RV POV pushing" is doing that rather well, it is my regret it irritated me enough to respond in kind.
At this point in time, after allowing plenty of time for reflection I see no justification for your removal of well-sourced material and will presently add it back. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up, again

Been away for a while and I come back to see it, as before, the section on disputes is beginning to sprawl out with everyone adding their pet independence/sovereignty campaign regardless of sourcing or whatever. I'm beginning to think the problem here is the whole idea of listing movements on this page at all. It's kind of like listing all the wars on war or all the countries in countries. What do you guys think about just getting rid of that section? Seems like a sensible idea to me, as I can't really see what the list actually adds to this page.

Sure, there's probably some relevant stuff in there for the topic of self-determination in general, but simply having a listing doesn't explain why each listed example actually tells you anything about self-determination. The relevant examples of a particular phenomenon (e.g., Spain/Argentina denying that the Falkland Islanders/Gibraltarians can exercise sovereignty) can be added to the "current issues" section in a way that explains why the inclusion on the information is relevant.

tl;dr - let's delete the list. FOARP (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Last Paragraph in the US section

It drives me absolutely crazy that people can think they can apply international law to cases that are more than century old. But more to the point, how exactly is the person who wrote this paragraph aware of the US position regarding a potential secession of Hawaii? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.217.173 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Section: Europe, Asia and Africa

The section on WWI and 'Europe, Asia and Africa' starts with Woodrow Wilson and the second paragraph states how the Soviet constitution put Wilson in a difficult position. I believe that Josh Sanborn's point in the last chapter of Imperial Apocalypse, while referring to others who discussed self-determination and Russia elsewhere, was that Wilson actually took up the concept because of political realities: Ukraine and Poland had already asserted themselves as self-determined nations in the negotations with the Germans. This was not to the liking of the Bolsheviks at all. The point being, the Soviet authorities in Petrograd were as much forced to recognize the self-determination of other peoples as Woodrow Wilson was. So, the formulation that Wilson had to change his plans because of the 1918 Soviet constitution seems to misrepresent the order of affairs. 82.217.116.224 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, what I wanted to say as well: if we start this section with Wilson, it would be wise to elaborate on that, because now there are two sentences about him and his 'plans' which are rather vague and seem lost. 82.217.116.224 (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands NPOV Dispute

The section on the Falkland Islands has been tagged for nearly a year now without any edits to it since March 2014. I believe this suggests the dispute is over and the current status of the section is accepted by all. Personally, I believe the section is neutral. As a result, I wish to remove the POV-section template. Before I do so, does anyone disagree and wish to argue the case that the section is still not neutral? Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note the current state of the article isn't accepted by all and the problem remains, the article is repeating an claim that is not true and not commenting on the range of opinions in the literature. Argentine claims of an act of force and the expulsion of the people are untrue. However, one editor in particular will not allow any mention that this is untrue and as it is a niche topic with little interest has managed to filibuster any discussion moving forward on resolving the matter. WCMemail 12:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I will see if I can find references on Argentina's stance on the issue and edit accordingly. Feel free to comment on my edits so we can resolve the issue. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I can provide any number of sources if it helps. I came up with the following some time ago, as an extended text as to the competing viewpoints in the literature:


Which I condensed to:


Regards, WCMemail 17:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To add, its worth looking in the archive for how toxic the discussions got. Regards, WCMemail 18:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'm happy with your drafted paragraphs. It's well sourced and there's no original research there so I don't see it how it could be judged as biased. Within the article we already mention the UK's viewpoint so Argentina's viewpoint definitely needs to be mentioned. If you went ahead and edited that in then you'd see no opposition from me. I'd suggest you go ahead and do so and removed the NPOV tag and see if anyone has anything to say on the edit. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thing is Sam, were I to do that, I know it would be reverted instantly; for no other reason than its my edit. If I tried to discuss it reasonably you see the results in the archive, if it goes to ANI they fling mud around and then I end up topic banned along with them. This is why its lasted in the current biased form it has. WCMemail 22:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. This is completely stupid though. I think we should try it and really get an admin in if they revert an edit that improves an article, as it has been 11 months since the last edit. Perhaps those users are no longer interested? It's up to you. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I for one would support this new draft, it's concise (and thus more readable), informative and neutral. Best, Apcbg (talk)
OK I've updated it but I don't expect it will last. Regards, WCMemail 11:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Well done! Best, Apcbg (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

SamWilson989 you may call an admin if you wish to, although I feel it would be unwarranted at this point (basic WP:BRD).

When Argentina or scholars say that the population was replaced, or that settlers were brought from Britain, they don't necessarily do so with just the 1833 incident in mind. WCM's edit is contradictory: it starts by saying that "historical records dispute [that the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population]" and it ends correctly pointing out that "there was no attempt to colonise the islands until 1841". I.e. there was in fact a colonization effort which resulted in a replaced population, with the exception of just TWO (2) persons. None of their descendants live today on the islands.

Royle, Stephen A. (1985). "The Falkland Islands, 1833-1876: The Establishment of a Colony". The Geographical Journal. 151 (2). The Royal Geographical Society: 204–214. When another census was taken in 1842 olny 10 of the 1838 population were still present; of the three families and seven single persons enumerated as settlers in 1838, only 2 persons remained in 1842. Both had entered Government employment, one as a gaucho, the other, a woman who had been on the islands for at least 20 years, as a 'washerwoman, milkwoman and occasional gaucho'.

So to the question "Are Falkand Islanders not aboriginal and brought to replace the Argentine population?" the answer is yes. But this is an uncomfortable truth to the Falkands warrior and that's why the straw man argument of focusing on 1833 alone, out of context, was promoted by the piece of British propaganda Getting it Right. The insinuation that this contradicts the replacement of population is not found in reliable sources, only in that pamphlet.

Also, as I've explained before, the distinction between garrison and "civilian" population is intrinsically pro-British POV. It's basically nitpicking in order to somehow cast doubts on the fact that Argentina as a nation was expelled from the islands. After all, in the 1700's all that Britain had on the islands was a garrison; idem Spain. But that was enough to exert, or try to exert, sovereignty. The same goes with the Argentine garrison expelled in 1833, and that's why it is central to the dispute, and more relevant that whether or not a handful of gauchos were allowed to remain on the islands or not.

It's also important to remind that this is not only Argentina's view but also a view in academic literature.

WCM, Apcbg and Kahastok (he will arrive soon, I imagine) will push for a British POV in this article, the first one being responsible for putting the NPOV banner and let it sit there ad infinitum. They've been known to impose their POV against what sources say by sheer number alone. So in the end of the day, whether or not this sections turns into a piece of British propaganda is up to you, SamWilson, and any other editor who might be reading this. For the time being, I'm restoring the second paragraph as you copy-edited, which I agree it's neutral. --Langus (t) 22:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

When it came to calling an admin, that was simply if anyone reverted the edits without discussion, as had happened in the past. I think the next step is for WCM to state exactly what he thinks is missing from the paragraph and so rather than a re-write, perhaps then what he thinks should be added. Then we can discuss that addition here and see whether it has too much of a British slant. If we take it sentence by sentence, or edit by edit, then it should be easier to judge its neutrality. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Sam, I told you it would be reverted and I could have named the editor who would do so. Equally I could have predicted the restoration of a biased paragraph without the tag. QED now you know why that tag has been there.
The Argentine claim is the entire population was expelled and its simply untrue but thats what Argentina claims. There is no attempt to put a sophisticated spin on it as above it is simply claimed the entire population was expelled. Let me just point out that if it weren't for the Gaucho murders of August 1833, then Vernet's venture would have persisted, more Gauchos would have been employed ie the situation that existed had nothing to do with British policy.
Can I also point out that the citation I used was Metford (1968), Gustafson [6] whose work is generally considered sympathetic to the Argentine claim but even he contradicts the "myth" (his words) of an expulsion in 1833. Langus asserts this is a recent "Pro-British" POV, it isn't, as I point out Gustafson (published 1988) is American and is considered Pro-Argentine by many, it is bizarre to suggest that Goebel's work of 1927 is pro-British propaganda and Mary Cawkell's research dates from the 1960s, hardly recent.
Its a comment that multiple academics make, however, if you are interested I have a copy of Royle's paper, he doesn't make any commentary about Argentine claims that is original research and synthesis in that the original author makes no such claim. In fact, the author supports the assertion the population persisted. WCMemail 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There has been reference to the weight in academic sources, may I also point out Talk:Self-determination/Archive 2#Response to Peter James on sources, I previously noted that Royle actually contradicts the modern Argentine claim. Regards, WCMemail 23:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It's still the same: you're providing excerpts of what happened between the 2nd and 3rd of January, 1833. However, to argue that this means that current inhabitants weren't brought to replace the Argentine population is synthesis, at best. That's not what Gustafson is saying. Or Metford, or any other reliable source that I know of (all the fragments you provided focus on 1833). You talk about the gaucho murders as if they weren't a direct result of British intervention (Capt. Onlsow promised them a pay that the storekeeper couldn't fulfill, and left without leaving any military force). Moreover, there was in fact a British policy of populating the islands with British subjects. Latin American inhabitants were unwanted:
  • "In the Caribbean in the eighteenth century, African slaves had been brought in to work, taking the place of the largely exterminated aboriginal peoples, but the Falklands climate is much harsher and, by the time the Islands were being developed by Britain from the early 1830s, slavery was regarded in an unfavorable light and it was abolished within the Empire in 1838. [...] The FI were considered as a penal colony in August 1840 when the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners reported on the economical prospects of the Islands. [...] The penal colony proposal was not taken up and so the peopling of the Islands so neccessary to make the colony viable and to mantain British occupation had to be carried out by the only other option, voluntary emigration of free settlers from Britain."
  • "Moody was positively in favour of encouraging emigration from Britain."
  • "Until late 1840s newcomers tended to be persons fleeing from trouble on the mainland of South America or those having been cast ashore at Stanley by sea captains as being surplus to requirements, 'but few have arrived from England' complained Moody."
  • "In 1846 British settlers, specifically Shetland Islanders, had been promised the Falkland Islands by Uruguayan bussinessman S.F. Lafone, as an integral part of his scheme to purchase large areas of land (the southern part of East Falkland is still called Lafonia) and manage wild cattle. Moody had, in 1842, recommended that a company should be set up to manage the cattle and, of course, he wanted British settlers. Unfonrtunately, Lafone's operation was not a success. Instead of properly farming the cattle, his men just slaughtered them and, far from bringing British settlers, he sent paupers from the River Plate area. In 1847, 106 of the total population of 270 were in his employ. Governor Rennie's dissatisfaction with Lafone's operation had led him to ask directly for settlers from Britain, and in October 1849 30 Chelsea Pensioners with their wives and families arrived. Wooden cottages shipped from England were erected for them and each was granted 10 acres of land."
  • "This was undoubtely helped by the opening up of West Falkland for settlement in 1866. Within a year all its land, except that in government reserves, had been taken up and [...] this island and its offshore islands became important in the wool trade and were colonized in a way which Moody would have approved, largely with settlers from Britain."
All of them quotes from Royle on the colonization efforts. This sounds rather coincident with the idea that current inhabitants are a transplanted population and, therefore, not entitled to self-determination. --Langus (t) 18:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Taking it step by step:

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


The specific claim made by Argentina is that in 1833, the British expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return.

The first part of the claim is that they expelled the settlers that had settled there.

Metford (1968), Gustafson (1988), Cawkell (1983) et al all address this particular claim to assert this is false.

The claim did not allow their return.

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

Cawkell (1983) notes Lt Smith urging Vernet to return and both Parish and Smith suggesting Vernet as a potential candidate to be a British Governor of the Falklands.

Above Langus comments on Royle mentioned Lafone sought Shetland Islanders for the Falklands, what he failed to mention was that Lafone did not deliver on that commitment but instead imported Gaucho's from the River Plate area. Laserre, an Argentine officer, visiting in 1860s comments on the Argentine residents of the islands.

I can also point to contemporary accounts[8] which show the claim that the people that had settled there is contradicted by all contemporary accounts.

I also note that the same editor has sought to remove any reference to the perpetuity of the settlement established by Luis Vernet at Falkland Islands, Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, History of the Falkland Islands, Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833), Luis Vernet, other Falklands related articles and here. I am pinging @Kahastok: and @Apcbg: and my mentor @Nick-D: who can confirm this.

I simply note that academic sources comment on the veracity of this particular claim, simply because Argentina claims that in the event of 1833, settlers were expelled. They comment because that is what Argentina claims and that is simply contradicted by contemporary historical records.

This transcends national boundaries, because that is what the historical records say. It is not a "British POV" or a "recent" view, it is a POV expressed by neutral academic sources and it is a POV that is not represented in this article that is present in neutral academic literature. WCMemail 20:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I would agree with all of that. I would also note that the case made by Langus is not even valid according to his own sources. For example, Langus' claim "Latin American inhabitants were unwanted" is directly contradicted by the quotes he provides - two of which refer to Latin American settlement post-1833. His claim that the British sent colonists to the islands is not backed up by his sources either - they make it clear that it was voluntary settlement by private individuals - as was happening in large parts of the world at the time. His conclusion "[t]his sounds rather coincident with the idea that current inhabitants are a transplanted population and, therefore, not entitled to self-determination" is his own, and most certainly not implied by his quotes or his argument in any way that could be used as the basis for any part of this or any other article.
While I believe the current text is POV for reasons amply described by Curry Monster - in that it fails to rebut the false statements made by the Argentine government. His version is far more neutral. Thus I endorse the placement of the NPOV banner pending resolution. But I take particular issue with the claim,

By removing the Argentine inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, self-determination therefore would not apply according to international law as the current inhabitants are not the original inhabitants (or the descendants of) and the UK breached the territorial integrity of the islands.

This makes a legal judgement in favour of Argentina in Wikipedia's voice, which is clearly POV. But also, per WP:OR, we can only say this if the point is made by the source in the specific case of the Falkland Islands. In this case, the source does not make this claim in the case of the Falklands, so we can't either. Kahastok talk 21:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Precisely, that's been my impression too: Langus' sources rather refute than support his claim. Apcbg (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Again and again WCM & Kahastook try to focus this discussion in two things: a) an official statement by the Argentine government (just a few paragraphs that are contradictory, not the whole text), and b) the incident of 1833. That is exactly the straw man argument: these editors choose which passage of the whole Argentine claim they're going to focus on, to then proceed to state (in the voice of WP, i.e. WP:EDITORIALIZING) that "historical records contradicts the Argentine claim". They argue that because "the population was encouraged to remain" and 24 people did so, therefore current inhabitants are not an implanted population, and that's a logical fallacy. As noted, of those 24, six were murdered shortly after as a direct result of British inaction, lowering the number to 11 (the murderers were 7). By 1842, at most TWO of them remained on the islands. You can't populate an island with 2 persons, not even in 200 years.
If you want it included in the article, you got to prove that this idea is not yours but that it comes from a reliable, secondary source. And by "this idea" I mean the idea that the exact circumstances of what happened on 3 January, 1833, somehow improves the grounds for self-determination of contemporary Falklanders, regardless of what happened the following years. They are demanding its inclusion on the grounds of WP:NPOV but they still haven't proven its relevance. And by prove I mean more than just taking their words at face value: I'm asking for quotes, or online reliable, secondary sources.
Kahastok, good job on spotting a bad citation, but I have no doubts that the sentence could've been modified to address your concerns, with a different source. The issue is that removing the whole rationale for the Argentine POV, leaves the section heavily unbalanced, as the first paragraph is entirely British POV... Do you intend to leave it that way? If not, I ask you to consider the edit that I'm about to introduce and that if you disagree in any aspect, instead of just emptying the paragraph again try you work with me to improve it (WP:ROWN), possibly with the aid of SamWilson989 and here in talk page if you feel it needs too much work. --Langus (t) 23:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Its an official statement by the Argentine Government in which it states its position. This isn't a strawman argument its what it states. And its not like Argentine officials don't regularly trot out this claim annually at the C24 every year and have done since Ruda first made a false statement at the UN. On wikipedia we report on what sources say, we don't interpret what the source really means.
Simple question - Does Argentina claim the settlers were expelled? Yes/No. Did it happen? Yes/No.
If you look at my past comments. I've also pointed out repeatedly that the claims by the Argentine Government are self-contradictory. On the one hand they make claims about an expulsion event, then later talk about heroic Argentine Gauchos fighting the British (in reality Gaucho Rivero murdering Vernet's officials). If you wish to point out that the Argentine Government contradicts itself I have no objection. However, I am surprised you make this point as when I included an edit pointing this out you opposed its inclusion and reverted me immediately in a WP:TAG team.
Furthermore, it isn't editorialising, I've already pointed out multiple sources comment on this including Metford (1968), Gustafson (1988), Cawkell (1983). It isn't my comment, its commentary in reliable secondary sources. Which has been demonstrated with multiple and extensive quotations on multiple occasions. The sources comment on the Argentine expulsion claim because it is untrue. Fill your boots, I've already provided links, multiple quotes and extensive references to sources.
You're further editorialising, Vernet's settlement ultimately failed because of a dispute with his workers who resorted to murder not "British inaction". And this is indeed a strawman, as the claim made is they were prevented from returning. Return they did - in March 1833, further as Laserre and other sources corroborate there was nothing to stop Argentines continuing to settle there. You don't address the point you go off at a tangent.
I've also removed your comment as an example of editorialising, you drew conclusions of your own and presented them in wikipedia's voice as authoritative conclusions made by the source. If you're going to include the "rationale", for balance you also have to include the fact that people comment the Argentine claim on which its based is untrue.
Further I don't claim that the self-determination rights of the islanders are improved or affected in anyway by reference to this claim; that's your own strawman. I don't have to prove its relevance in that context, that is also a strawman. I simply to demonstrate and have done that its representative of the range of opinions in the literature. Its effect on the self-determination rights of the islanders is not something we should be commenting upon. We allow readers to draw their own conclusions, which is rather difficult when one editor is filibustering any discussion on mention of this topic.WCMemail 00:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not untrue. Falklanders are a transplanted population, even if in 1833 "only the garrison was requested to leave". Are you able to understand that one fact doesn't rule out the other? We are aiming for a two-paragraph text here, if we're going to focus on the exact circumstances of a particular incident, it should be damn relevant! If you need to explain exactly what happened on Jan 3, 1833, then on grounds of WP:NPOV you'd also need to briefly explain the colonization process that started, according to Cawkell, in 1841. Would that be uncomfortable to you?
Argentine authorities were expelled on that day, and that's what leads many reliable, secondary sources to sum it up as "Argentina was expelled" or "the Argentine population was expelled". Focusing on 24, or 11 or 2 civilians is nitpicking, it's denying the readers the chance to see the big picture.
Here's what the source says:
In some cases, such as Algeria or Northern Ireland, many citizens of the colonizing power, or indigenes who identify with it, will have been implanted in the colonial territory. If the colonists or their offspring do not identify with the indigenous population, their insistence on self-determination will conflict with the demand of other inhabitants, whether resident or expelled, for decolonization. Those identifying with the metropolitan will insist on self-determination and continued association with the metropolitan country. Exiles, or a state claiming to have been expelled, will demand decolonization and reinstatement. This is the situation in Gibraltar, perhaps in Western Sahara, and, if self-determination is even relevant to it, in the Falkland Islands. [...] Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders.
And here's what I wrote:
"Because an entire British population took root on the years thereafter, Argentina argues that their current claim for self-determination is at odds with Argentina's demands for decolonization."
You call that editorializing? Or worst, you also say it's original research. Can you explain what are the conclusions I made on my own? --Langus (t) 03:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all there has never been an indigenous population in the islands, only European settlers. Secondly, the Argentine inhabitants were not expelled. Thirdly, Argentines inhabitants were not barred from settling there. Fourthly, international law does make a distinction between a garrison and settlers, since a garrision is a transitory or temporary population, whereas settlers are permanent. The fact that there was only a population of 24 individual settlers is immaterial, the cirucumstances which causes that population to dwindle were nothing to do with British. The settler population who voluntrarily moved there includes unchecked immigration from Uruguay and Argentina. You are conducting WP:OR to justify vetoing inclusion of valid comments made by sources and you are editorialising by filibustering to insist only comments supportive of the Argentine POV are allowed. Selective selection of sources to back up an a priori assumption is the very sine qua non of WP:SYN. WCMemail 14:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

WCM's comments above makes no sense at all. The points 1, 2 and 3 are against a reliable source; he's not arguing me but the reliable source. Therefore, it is actually WCM who's adovcating for WP:OR. Let's remind what original research is: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material —such as facts, allegations, and ideas— for which no reliable, published sources exist". As long as Reisman is a reliable, published source, I haven't incurred in original research.
Moreover: all the points raised are unrelated to what I actually proposed, so those arguments are not valid reasons for remotion. My edit contained exactly what the source says. Accusations of WP:OR and WP:SYN are, as usual, unwarranted.
@WCM, your 4th point: "international law does make a distinction between a garrison and settlers, since a garrision is a transitory or temporary population, whereas settlers are permanent" is novel to me. Even if it makes no sense, I'm interested: would you share your source for that?
Kahastok deleted half the Argentine POV from the section. It is reasonable to expect that some Argentine argumentation is missing. If they plan to leave the text as currently is, they'd be WP:CENSORING Wikipedia, while ironically denouncing me at the same time for resisting the move. --Langus (t) 20:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Langus, your arguments for removal of my text were addressed, they didn't stand up to scrutiny. So you moved the goal posts and invented new reasons. I have actually addressed those new points succinctly and directly above and once again they don't stand up to scrutiny. You're now asserting they don't. This is classic filibustering.
Kahastok removed some text for a specific reason and as regards POV, you have editors arguing for a NPOV reflecting the range of opinion in the literature and one editor who is talking about representing only the Argentine POV.
As this has now become circular, can I ask @Apcbg:, @Kahastok: and @SamWilson989: and ask them to offer an opinion. Try and resist the temptation to have the WP:LAST word please Langus. WCMemail 21:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's have a look.

The first problem with the proposed text is that while it makes grammatical sense, it makes no other sense. "Because an entire British population took root on the years thereafter"? Trees take root on islands. Populations do not take root on years. Partly because people don't tend to sprout roots (most of them walk around), partly because it's difficult to put a root of any kind through a year. Generally better to use soil or water. And "an entire British population"? Which British population? The entire English population? The entire Isle of Man population? We have the entire population of some part of British territory sprouting roots en masse in a soil made of time? As I say, it makes no actual sense.

And what about "Argentina argues that their current claim for self-determination is at odds with Argentina's demands for decolonization"? This tells the reader nothing. Who cares? It being established that self-determination would naturally favour the British position, it is blindingly obvious that self-determination is at odds with Argentina's position. "Argentina's demands for decolonization" doesn't make sense unless you're assuming that the reader has actually read the source, which gives the term "decolonization" a significantly different meaning from that implied by the rest of the article.

If we make an educated guess as to what is meant by all this, we come across other problems. As Langus' own previous sources demonstrate, the population was not entirely British in origin. He refers to "persons fleeing from trouble on the mainland of South America or those having been cast ashore at Stanley by sea captains as being surplus to requirements" as being the main settlers in "the years thereafter" - indeed, for at least 15 years after 1833 they seem to have been the main settlers. Langus also mentions Lafone, who was Uruguayan. Even if we accept Langus' other arguments re: 1833 (which are inconsistent with those of the Argentine government as WCM has demonstrated), the suggestion that the Falklands population in the years immediately following 1833 were entirely British in origin simply does not stand up to scrutiny based on the sources we have seen here.

Is it a good text, well sourced, appropriate? No. Because even if fixed up and made comprehensible, it does not reflect the sources available as a whole. Kahastok talk 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would repeat my strong support for WCM's text as a concise, informative and neutral one; the comments above amply confirm that Langus has no valid point here whatsoever. Apcbg (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Apcbg for proving my point that you three always get away with it by simple vote counting. Because in the end of the day, not a single source was given. Lots of names and confident assertions, but no quotes.
@Kahastok, some final points: a) you assume incorrectly that "years thereafter" refer to only 15 years: it doesn't; and b) you're questioning the source, not me. The expression 'to take roots', which you so cheerfully mocked, is used by Reisman himself, and has an entry in Wiktionary waiting for you. To be honest, it's quite disappointing watching you questioning the meaning of words and expressions without ever proposing another wording (e.g. here and here). It is suggestive, specially being you and not me the native English speaker. --Langus (t) 01:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Langus, your sources were enough for me; as for WCM's section in the article itself, it is amply and adequately sourced. Apcbg (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
[9] FYI, the annual Argentine letter to the UN on the anniversary of 1833, when once again it claims the population and authorities were expelled. WCMemail 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
And then you have the British Government replying that letter with the argument that the population is not implanted because "all civilians have voluntarily migrated" to the islands, which of course is gramatically correct but suffers a complete lack of coherence. Should we include that claim with a rebuttal, citing works such as Gough, Barry M. (1990). "The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843". Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. 22 (2). The North American Conference on British Studies. -- or Royle, Stephen A. (1985). "The Falkland Islands, 1833-1876: The Establishment of a Colony". The Geographical Journal. 151 (2). The Royal Geographical Society.  ? --Langus (t) 20:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
OK again point by point:
  • Argentina claims an expulsion event occurred in January 1833, a position repeated at the United Nations in January 2015. In response, you've tried to suggest that this isn't what Argentina claims, when we have sources that state this verbatim.
  • Noting that Argentina makes this claim, we have also noted that academics dispute this, citing that the historical record. In response, you first asserted this was "recent British POV". Aside from the fact this would immaterial, we have in fact shown that academics have commented on this since the Ruda speech of 1964, eg Metford (1968).
  • You've also tried to assert that making a distinction between the population and the Argentine authorities is a British POV. Again, aside from the fact that it is immaterial, as noted in the recent statement made at the UN, Argentina claims both the population and Argentine authorities were expelled.
Thus far, all your objections to including a viewpoint widely expressed in the available literature do not stand up to scrutiny.
Your latest response is to resort to ridicule and to suggest that the statement issued by the British representative could be rebutted by a number of references. I would comment that could only be done if you falsified your citation, since the statement is not contradicted by those references. I also note that it doesn't address the discussion on the inclusion of the material you have objected to and is apparently an attempt to divert discussion. Do we conclude that consensus has been reached? Consensus being about the strength of argument and you seem to have run out of them. I'd welcome comments from @Kahastok:, @Apcbg: and @SamWilson989: WCMemail 11:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a non-unanimous consensus for your text. I'd note that I can't get your UN link to work (I often have this problem on the UN website, which seems to discourage inward linking to documents), but I can't see evidence for Langus' claims, and it is clear that the Argentine government has long argued that the entire settlement (both population and authorities) was expelled in 1833. Kahastok talk 11:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
[10] Try this one. WCMemail 11:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Difficult to deny that the specific claim that "the Argentine population and authorities" were expelled - not just in 1833 but in January 1833 - is present in the very first sentence of that letter. We can thus reject the argument that Argentina does not make such a claim out of hand. Kahastok talk 12:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me the issue has been sufficiently clarified, and we may as well close this discussion. Apcbg (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Apcbg.

When you reduce a discussion to a mere vote counting, ignoring reliable sources and/or distorting their words, and when you WP:CANVASS a conversation like this in order to get those votes... well no, you are not doing Wikipedia any favor by calling that consensus. Specially since the only uninvolved editor, @SamWilson989:, suggested a neutral text to which I agreed, and you rejected, and he has not backed your position either.

You keep on repeating yourself, then I'll keep on repeating why your argument is tainted: not only the Argentine government says that the population was expelled, reliable, secondary sources also say that they were expelled.[16][17][18] You choose to ignore the reliable sources, like Reisman above, and focus on official statements only. Why don't you try to rebut reliable sources with reliable sources? Would it be too obvious? Also, you choose to ignore the parts of those official statements when they acknowledge that some settlers did remain.[19] You choose to ignore the summary that reliable sources do when talking about the subject, by referring to it as "Argentina was expelled" or similar.[20][21][22]

This, gentlemen, is nitpicking in order to construct a straw man to beat. We could apply the same treatment to the ridiculous reasoning that a population would only be implanted if it was moved in there against their will regardless of the nature of its origin, which is what really matters. We could contrast this British official statement[23] against what historical facts and reliable, secondary sources show us: that there was a state policy of populating the islands with British subjects. That would be nitpicking the British statement in order to ridiculize it, advancing an editorial position; that, gentlemen, is exactly what you are doing but from the other POV. This is why your argument is tainted from the start: you should first ask yourself if including it is accordance with WP:NPOV.

I suggest uninvolved editors to take a careful look at those sources I mentioned, ignoring these three editors' falsehoods about their content. The mere title of those works should hint you that my conclusion is in accord with their authors:

Also, a reliable summary:

The strength of argument is not on your side. And a team of usual faces canvassed into a discussion does not constitute consensus; it is actually WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. --Langus (t) 02:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


References
  1. ^ "The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008". Legislation.gov.uk. 2011-07-04. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  2. ^ a b Victor Bulmer-Thomas (17 August 1989). Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relationship. Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–. ISBN 978-0-521-37205-3. Retrieved 11 September 2012.
  3. ^ "Falklands' 1986 referendum showed 94.5% favoured British sovereignty". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
  4. ^ ""Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day — MercoPress". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  5. ^ [1] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  6. ^ "The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008". Legislation.gov.uk. 2011-07-04. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  7. ^ "Falklands' 1986 referendum showed 94.5% favoured British sovereignty". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
  8. ^ ""Self determination and self sufficiency", Falklands message to the world on Liberation Day — MercoPress". En.mercopress.com. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  9. ^ UN Press Release 20GA/COL/3047
  10. ^ [2] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  11. ^ Angel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3.
  12. ^ Mary Cawkell (January 1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  13. ^ [3] The Telegraph, Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina, Jasper Copping, 27 Feb 2010 There was no such penal colony. Onslow told the Argentine garrison to leave but asked civilians to stay, as most of them did.
  14. ^ Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the Sout Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. pp. 91–94. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  15. ^ Marjory Harper (1998). Emigration from Scotland Between the Wars: Opportunity Or Exile?. Manchester University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-7190-4927-9.
  16. ^ Reisman, W.M. "The struggle for the Falklands". The Yale Law Journal (93): 287. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders.
  17. ^ Chun, Clayton K.S. Aerospace power in the twenty-first century a basic primer. DIANE Publishing. p. 222. The British had gained the Falkland Islands as a possesion in 1833 through eviction of Argentinean colonists.
  18. ^ Rock, David (1987). Argentina, 1516-1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín. University of California Press. In 1833 Britain seized the islands by force, expelled the small Spanish-speaking community, and banned migration from the mainland.
  19. ^ "La Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas". After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base.
  20. ^ Korman, Sharon (1996). The Right of Conquest : The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. Oxford University Press. p. 105. In 1833, a small British warship, the HMS Clio, sailed to the Falkland Islands, threatening force against the Argentinian settlement. Although Britain argued that its measures did not amount to a use of force, there is no doubt that force was used, and that it was Britain's use of force which led to the withdrawal of the Argentine presence from the islands.
  21. ^ Escude, Carlos. Las Malvinas serán argentinas. El Guardian. Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right.
  22. ^ Ferguson, Niall (2008). Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. Basic Books. p. 402. [The Islands were] claimed for the Empire by ships of the Royal Navy which had expelled Argentina from the islands in 1833.
  23. ^ "Letter dated 29 January 2015 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General".

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Self-determination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Self-determination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-determination/Archive_3&oldid=1131381256"