Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

Removal of important summit by Wee and Kahastok

Will you explain the reasoning behind removing the mention the very important "Cumbre de la unidad de América Latina y el Caribe" summit were representatives of 33 countries expressed their support for the Argentinian position please? Wee says "we don't report every summit". Who exactly is "we" and why do "they" feel "they" can decide not to report this summit? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Argentina raises the issue at every summit it attends, once even claiming at a summit on venereal disease to be responsible for VD in the Falkland Islands (apologies for the easily shocked but that still amuses me most childishly). As noted previously [1] a discussion in which Gaba p participated it is not necessary to give a long list of summits etc at which Argentina has raised the issue. There was nothing new or different at this summit and we describe the usual measures given. You're raising a dead issue, already resolved. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree we don't need or want a list of summits, but I think it is worth recording that those 33 countries have declared their support of Argentina. I've edited to The members of the Rio Group of South American states have jointly declared their support to the Argentine position, and a number of their members including Peru, Brazil, Chile and Mexico have also individually declared their support and voiced that support within international organisations - an improvement? Khendon (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It has the major problem that several of those countries are not staunch supporters of Argentina but rather have tended to sign up to whatever statement is put in front of them. Here, for example, is Caricom supporting the British position - and Caricom's membership includes several states that were at the Rio Group in 2010. In some cases, countries have accepted mutually contradictory statements within weeks of one another. Kahastok italk 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, and the contradictions worth a mention in the article I'd say Khendon (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To add to what Kahatosk said earlier, Argentina issued a press release claiming support from certain Commonwealth countries (CARICOM), they later issued a statement denying that they supported Argentina's position. They're not always contradictory, in some cases it is claimed they supported a motion they didn't. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"once even claiming at a summit on venereal disease to be responsible for VD in the Falkland Islands" I believe you're wrong on this one, that you have mistranslated a book in Spanish. What source are you basing on? --Langus (t) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The declaration is clear: it downright supports the Argentinian position. The position is neither neutral nor "calling for negotiations" and it is not an Argentinian press release either. In any case I'm content with the current state of the section, I've onle added the word "large" (as not to mention "33 countries"), "Caribbean" next to Latin American and moved the ref to this section since, as I mentioned, it is supportive of Agentina, not neutral. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the circumstances - given that we're referring to a group of countries that have signed statements supporting both sides - I cannot accept a statement claiming that the Caribbean supports Argentina, which is what your version says. Such a statement is inaccurate and biased. Kahastok talk 20:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok Kahastok, could you please indicte which Caribbean coutries signed the declaration supporting the British claim please? That way we could even sort them out and mention them explicitely. I will reinstate my edit but removing "Caribbean" until we can sort this out. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that isn't what we should be doing, as that is original research by looking at primary sources and making a judgement call on the position of individual countries. Simply because a country supported a resolution calling for negotiations does not mean they support either. We need a reliable and neutral 3rd party source to do that. Neither should we be listing summits, rather generalising and ideally based on what neutral 3rd party sources say. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. And I also object to the use of the word "large", which creates an quantitative claim as to the number of countries that is not supported by the sources without original interpretation. IOW it interprets, without sources to back it up, that those that we have unequivocal evidence for constitute "a large number of Latin American states" (emphasis mine).

I'd also dispute the word's neutrality as it emphasises support for Argentina, which is something we shouldn't be doing. Kahastok talk 23:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree on the word "large" but I didn't revert it on the basis it was so childish to have inserted it in the first place. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I've added information regarding the UNASUR so as to remove ambiguity by the use of the word "large".

Wee: I don't understand to what are you referring as WP:OR. I asked for a source that stated which Caribbean countries backed the UK in that reunion so we could mention that information in the article. What exactly do you find wrong with this? Do either you or Kahastok actually have such information or not?. If so, could you please present it?. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: please do not remove important information regarding Latin American states and Spain. It's not a list of anything and there has never been anyhing even remotely similar to a consensus in this talk page to not include such relevant information. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Given my opposition to this idea going into masses of detail about the position taken by each individual country, I see no need to provide any more sources than I have already provided, which refers clearly to the nations of Caricom. If you wish to make a proposal to change the article in this direction, it is your job to source that proposal (including both British and Argentine POVs as appropriate), not mine. I also oppose the addition of UNASUR (this is not a list of Latin American summits attended by Argentina, and in any case there is overlap with Caricom) and Spain. This is too much detail here.

Your claim that there has never been explicit consensus not to include, even if true, is irrelevant because the current consensus does not include it. If you wish to make the change, you need consensus for it. Not the other way around. Kahastok talk 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted for a 3rd time, clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN as the editor has inferred their own conclusions from sources. Clear POV edit in elevating support for Argentina and deprecating that for Britain; this should be guided as how neutral sources describe it. Reverted hence for failing to conform to WP:NPOV. And also use of WP:WEASEL words. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you one more time to please stop making this blanket reverts without reasons. I'm currently making four edits:

1. France and its current vs its old position during the war. I have found no new sources stating that France supports the UK in its claim.
2. Added UNASUR which includes all Latin American states without the need to list each one separately. This informition is vital since it reflects clearly that the totality of Latin America backs the Argentinian position.
3. Added position of Spain which is involved in an identical issue regarding Gibraltar. How could this country's position not be relevant enough to be included in the article?
4. Expand on the result of the Ibero American summit. What exactly do you find wrong with this?

Your accusations that my edit are POV are childish. I'm reflecting almost verbatim what the sources say and what different countries state about the issue. Once again: this is an encyclopedia and we are supposed to make it better with more sourced and relevant information. Your constant attempts at obscuring relevant sourced information are baffling. Please do not incur in more blanket reverts. If you have an issue with any of my edits then address them here one by one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Wee has now jumped the blanket revert wagon too. Fine, I'll await here your comments about each point and why you think that information should not be added into the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok and Wee please address each point and why you have removed it from the article please.

1. France and its current vs its old position during the war. I have found no new sources stating that France supports the UK in its claim.
2. Added UNASUR which includes all Latin American states without the need to list each one separately. This informition is vital since it reflects clearly that the totality of Latin America backs the Argentinian position.
3. Added position of Spain which is involved in an identical issue regarding Gibraltar. How could this country's position not be relevant enough to be included in the article?
4. Expand on the result of the Ibero American summit. What exactly do you find wrong with this?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely all that is needed is a source that shows that generally Anglo-phone and European countries support the Islanders and a source shows that that unsuprisingly Spanish speaking countries and Argentina's neighbours support Argentina. It is not as though they have suddenly changed policy. As side issue, whilst Gibraltar is similar in someways it is not an identical situation, the main similarity being that the residents want to continue their relationship with the UK. Bevo74 (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74 agreed. That is why I added a single source which included all Latin American countries without the need to mention each one (edit number 2) This was deleted by Wee and Kahastok.

Agree again with your 2nd point. That's why my edit said that Spain and the UK where involved in a "similar" issue regarding Gibraltar (edit number 3) This was also deleted by Wee and Kahastok.

I will not be reverting their reverts since they are tag-teaming and I do not want to breach the 3RR. If you agree with any (or all) of the edits, I'd ask you te please re-instate it/them.

I'm still waiting to hear the reasons for the removal of each point by Wee and Kahastok. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The only attitude we need to know about Spain is regarding the Falklands, Gibraltar is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with Gibraltar being irrelevant (it's the other highly disputed former British colony and by Spain nonetheless which is heavily involved in the discussion about the origins of the islands sovereignty) but if such is the consensus then only the first part of edit number 3 can be re-added.

Still waiting to hear reasons for deleting all 4 points by Wee and Kahastok. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74 and Slatersteven: could I ask you to comment on all 4 of the edits and tell me if you find some reason as to why they should not be included please? You'll find them sequentially in the last diff revert by Wee. Thanks a lot. Gaba p (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the sources do not say that they support Argentinian claims to the Falklands, they support a call for negotiations (thus you have placed then in the wrong section.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I added it there because of the title "Apoyo de España por Malvinas" and the quoted statement. How would you state that Spain supports a call for negotiations based on that article? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Because we use the text of an article for what it says, not the attention grabbing head line

"The Government of Spain yesterday confirmed its commitment to the claims of Argentina for Britain to support negotiations on sovereignty in the Falkland Islands."

is what the first paragraph says (my translation may not be that accurate, but is I suspect close enough).Slatersteven (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Believe it or not, Gaba, not all of us spend all of our time in front of a computer waiting for you to edit. You demanded responses five times in the space of an hour. That's not helpful. It doesn't make me likely to respond to you any faster. It doesn't increase your chances of persuading me to agree with you. Sometimes you just have to be patient.

As it happens, I've already told you why I oppose this edit. You say that it's "childish" to call it POV. That isn't going to persuade me to agree with you either. And it's also false. When the effect of your edit is to systematically emphasise the support for the Argentine POV and de-emphasise support for the British POV, then your edit is POV. It doesn't matter whether you are quoting your sources verbatim or not - quoting a biased source verbatim does not make that source neutral. And that's even ignoring the fact that your edits suggest that all these countries are clear supporters of Argentina when I have already demonstrated that this is inaccurate.

I oppose the notion that we should be trawling through countries looking for whatever they might have said about the Falklands in the past. We used to have a map that did something like this: it was removed because of complicated situations such as the Caribbean states, because divining opinion often required significant OR, and because it placed far too much undue weight on the platitudes of states who in all likelihood don't care either way, or whose opinions are of little significance in terms of the dispute. All of these points remain. A list of countries and their platitudes could easily take up the entire article, would constitute severe OR and for the most part would be totally beside the point. That's not to say that we shouldn't be listing any other individual countries - but only the major players, such as the remaining members of the P5. The rest should be put in general terms.

I also oppose the notion that we should be listing every regional summit that has voiced any kind of support for Argentina, let alone go through them all in detail as you propose. Ignoring the basic POV points here - you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain, and suggest a clear-cut position in cases where the evidence is nuanced - Argentina raises the point at every regional summit or organisation it attends. The suggestion inherent is there is somehow a significant difference between one summit where a few South American countries supported Argentina, and another summit under a different name where the same few South American countries supported Argentina, and then a third summit under a different name where the same few South American countries supported Argentina. This suggestion is illogical and significantly overemphasises the level of support - you're basically trying to count them several times over. Kahastok talk 21:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that neatly and succinctly summarises my position also. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Slatersteven: as I said, I based my edit on what the minister said. In any case if you think this part would be better suited for the following section I have no problem in moving it. Would you agree with that?

No you said you based the edit on the headline.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee and Kahastok: First of all I note how you avoided mentioning what you problem was point for point but instead presented only vague statements. I expected this since you clearly can't find anything wrong with each edit in particular and chose to do this to distract from that fact.

1. "quoting a biased source verbatim does not make that source neutral". Please explain which source is not neutral.
2. "your edits suggest that all these countries are clear supporters of Argentina when I have already demonstrated that this is inaccurate". The Caribbean states are not mentioned in my edits. I have no idea why you bring that up here. The edit mentions Latin America not the Caribbean. I presume you are aware of the difference between the two so I'll have to ask you: which countries are you talking about?
3. "I oppose the notion that we should be trawling through countries looking for whatever they might have said about the Falklands in the past". That is why I added the UNASUR statement which allows us to group all Latin American countries in one single source. Your reason for the removal of this sentence doesn't even make sense.
4. "I also oppose the notion that we should be listing every regional summit that has voiced any kind of support for Argentina, let alone go through them all in detail as you propose". There are currently two summits mentioned the OAS and the Ibero-American summit. If you want to get rid of one then the OAS is far more suited than the UNASUR since it is almost 7 years old while the UNASUR statement is from last year an clearly states the full support of all Latin American states to the Argentinian position, not just a call for negotiations. This is simply an attempt to obscure the position of countries backing the Argentinian claim and it is borderline WP:VANDALISM. As for the "detail" I propose, I believe a sentence as short as "The totality of the South American states (with the exception of the French Guiana, an overseas region of France), through the UNASUR, have stated their support towards the Argentinian position regarding the issue" surely can't be an issue.
5. "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain" <-- When did I propose not to list pro-British position? I'll ask you to provide a link or take back your words.
6. "you're basically trying to count them several times over". As I said, if the issue is the number of summits (currently two) I'll go ahead and remove the OAS mention being much more relevant and current the UNASUR mention. I note also that the Ibero-American summit mention already mentions the OAS so there's no need to mention it again.

I'll re-instate the edits one by one (except the Spain mention which Slatersteven and I are working out, something you don't seem willing to do). If you have an issue with one of them I'll ask you to revert it if you want and address the reason one by one. Abstain from blanket reverts and vague statements and instead discuss each edit in particular. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A basic principle here is that we don't add new information unless it gets consensus. The accusations and personal attacks in your messages above are deeply unhelpful to your position in this regard. Your attempts to edit war the text into the article show a disappointing disregard for Wikipedia policy in this matter. It's WP:BRD, not BRDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

It is obvious that a declaration by a group of states explicitly supporting one side in a dispute, or that a government statement putting the government's position on a particular matter, is not a neutral source. And where we are discussing neutral reporting of such statements, quoting them verbatim would still not necessarily be neutral, if the choice of statements isn't neutral. Given that your proposals choose only to describe statements that support Argentina, and you propose only to downplay statements supporting Britain, this appears to be a fair description of what you are doing. (You want a diff? Here. Please point out where you propose mentioning any statement supporting the UK in the same detail as you propose for every statement supporting Argentina.)

It is your responsibility as an editor to ensure that the article is neutral. That means you have to research both sides. You have to write for your opponent as well as for those you support. Picking the pro-Argentine points and expecting others to find the pro-British ones is not good enough.

You repeat claims about "Latin America" but also suggest that Latin America is fully represented by UNASUR. I suggest you look at Latin America, and note the varying definitions in use. One definition of "Latin America" does include all members of Caricom. Your definition, which appears to be based on UNASUR, also includes two members of Caricom: even if we only take UNASUR, the claim you propose we make a great play of - of a monolithic support for Argentina - is not borne out by the sources. And Caricom aside, you claim support for Argentina from "totality of the South American states" - even explicitly excepting French Guiana. If French Guiana counts, the presumably the Falklands do as well: please provide a source that demonstrates that the Falkland Islands government supports Argentina in this dispute.

I remain opposed to your edits because I do not feel that my previously expressed concerns, which covered your proposal fully, have been adequately addressed. Please also note WP:FILIBUSTERS. Kahastok talk 18:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And once again another blanket revert by Kahastok and once again a refusal to address the points one by one and instead produce only vague statements of POV.

First of all let me warn you: "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain", this is what you said about me. This is a lie. I never proposed such a thing and everyone here knows it. The fact that I'm trying to bring some balance to a heavily pro-British section does not mean in any way that I "propose" to not expand on the British claim and the countries that support it as well. You have not taken back your words and you have even chosen to accuse me once again. Fair enough. This is the last time you get to do so. Next time I'll take you to ANI.

• Your statement that because a group of countries support the Argentinian claim then the mention of a declaration put forward by them is not neutral is beyond ridiculous. Even if that were the case the statement is also sourced by Mercopress. Is that a non-neutral source too?
• I "repeat claims about Latin America"??? Have you actually taken the time to read my edit before you blanket-reverted them? I do not mention Latin America at all. The only mention to Latin America was there before I started editing. This is either a bad faith claim by you or a terribly careless one.
• "If French Guiana counts, the presumably the Falklands do as well: please provide a source that demonstrates that the Falkland Islands government supports Argentina in this dispute". What? Are you proposing we add the Falklands to the "states" that do not support the Argentinian claim? Noting that this is just a childish way of trying to trash a perfectly valid edit, if you seriously think this will improve the article then I have no problem including the Falklands in the statement.

So here we are, back to an old biased version of the section after several blanket reverts by you. That's ok, let's then go ahead and review each edit one by one.

1. France was supportive of the British position during the 1982 war.
2. The totality of the South American states (with the exception of the French Guiana, an overseas region of France), through the UNASUR, have stated their support towards the Argentinian position regarding the issue.
3. The Secretary of State for International Cooperation and Latin America of Spain, stated in early 2012 that "Spain shares with Argentina its position over the Falklands. It has done so for a long time and this is expressed in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OEA and the United Nations". Spain is currently involved in a similar issue with the UK over another former British colony Gibraltar.
4. The Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations "within the framework of the resolutions of the UN and the OAS, and the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of territorial integrity". The countries members of this summit have repeatedly backed Argentina in its calls to restore negotiations while asking the UK to refrain "from taking unilateral decisions involving changes in the situation of the Falkland Islands in accordance with Resolution 31/49 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which do not contribute to a final settlement of the territorial dispute."

This are the edits I propose. Please indicate the problem with each of them and/or how you would re-phrase them. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the link I referred to above, the current version of the article represents a neutral summary and a consensus position that user:Gaba p agreed with. To tag it, is purely disruptive at this point, in fact its simply WP:POINT. As noted, the edit he attempted to force into the article is not neutral. I will simply note this pattern of disruptive behaviour seems to be creating a battleground for no benefit to the project. There is no attempt to discuss its simply filibustering .Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Kahastok talk 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agreed with nothing, the fact that I didn't put the tag before does not mean I believe the section to be neutral. In fact I do not. I can't believe you and Kahastok are telling me what I believe. This is just amazing. First you deleted all four edits with no particular reason. Then you refuse to discuss them after I asked you to several times. Finally you remove my tag of NPOV telling me what I actually believe.

Kahastok: your message at my talk page is laughable since I reverted only 2 times and one of them simply to reinstate the NPOV tags when I could have just edited them in. Want to try your luck? Please report me.

Wee saying "there is not attempt to discuss" after he refused to discuss the matter commenting nothing about any of the four edits is... well it's just Wee behavior.

So to re-cap: you have commented absolutely nothing about any of the four edits or why you feel its inclusion to be inappropriate. You have deleted all edits with vague statements of "OR" or "POV". And you have removed the tags of NPOV I added refusing to discuss the matter here. I think at this point it's either DRN or ANI. Would you like to choose one or should I? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee and Kahastok: once again, before taking this to DRN, I'll politely ask you to please comment on the mentioned edits separately and why you have reverted them please. Note that the edit regarding Spain is being discussed in the section below. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For my part, given that just about every comment I have made on the subject (including the detailed objections that I have already provided) seems to have been met first with a flurry of personal attacks and accusations and second with a total denial that any comment was made, I struggle to see what benefit to the encyclopædia is likely to be attained by continuing this discussion. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Spain

The material about Spanish support for Argentina should be re-worded and moves to the calls for negotiation section. The material on Gibraltar seems superfluous.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I will gladly move it to the mentioned sub-section. Would you like to propose a re-worded version of the edit or point me to which part specifically you think needs to be re-worded so I can do it? Regarding the mention of Gibraltar I still think it is an important piece of information to show given the involvement of Spain in the beginning of the issue and the similarity with this former British colony, but if a majority of editors think Gibraltar should not be mentioned then I'll remove it. Regards and thank you for responding. Gaba p (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Something like

The Spanish government has supported Argentina's call for negotiations over sovereignty.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven, though I'm worried about so many short sentences in that section... Maybe we could copy-edit a bit? --Langus (t) 15:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How about something like: "The Spanish government has supported Argentina's call for negotiations over sovereignty and has expressed so in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OEA and the United Nations". (removed Gibraltar mention as advised by Slatersteven and expanded as advised by Langus) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain opposed for reasons expressed earlier, and note in this context that Spain ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, formally recognising the islands as British, so the best we can say for Argentina is that they are another that swings both ways. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What "reasons expressed earlier"? Could you be more specific please? The treaty of Lisbon is already mentioned in the article, so of course this needs to be mentioned too. I'd ask that you please 1- express specifically why do you oppose the addition of this information and 2- propose a form for this edit if you so wish too. I remind you that the current consensus is to locate Spain in the "Neutral" section, this is not being presented as supporting Argentina. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know why I oppose this, I suggest you go to the beginning of this section and start reading. It's all there. And I don't accept your assertion that there is any consensus such as you describe - I see none in this section, and there is no previous consensus that would back such a claim. Kahastok talk 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that's "there" are your vague statements of POV. If you want to oppose this edit you need to state here why exactly do you oppose it. Do you believe this to be an unreasonable request? Because I think it's pretty simple: three editors are involved in working on an edit for the article and you simply "oppose" refusing to state why. Once again let me ask you to please expose your reasons as to why the position of Spain should not be added to the article. If you've already written the reason then it can't be that hard to copy/paste the same reason here, right?

If Slatersteven agrees with my proposed edit I'll go ahead and add it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you do not like my arguments does not mean that they were not made. Given that every time I have made a point you have immediately started issuing personal attacks and unwarranted accusations - and totally ignored the substance of the point made - I see little reason to believe that continually repeating them will be of benefit to the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

France

We need evidence of renewed French support, or else we should note that France was supportive to the British position during the Falklands War. I looked for news but I found none. --Langus (t) 15:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I could not find any current mention of France's position either, that's why I proposed the edit. Can any other editor produce a reference where France supports the British claim in present days (or a couple of years old)? If not the sentence needs to be re-phrased so as to not mislead the reader. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would note that trying to apply the same standards to a country whose interested is in having support for its position being affirmed at every opportunity and a country whose interest is in the thing getting as little publicity as possible is fairly obviously unreasonable. It should be expected in this context that support for Britain will be more subtly expressed. In this case, France ratified the Treaty of Lisbon and has never argued the Argentine position. Unlike countries like Spain, this is an example of a country - and major player, member of the P5 - whose viewpoint we can pin down as consistent. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not applying any standards here. France is mentioned as currently supporting the British position with no source to back the statement. This needs to be fixed by either re-phrasing the sentence or adding a source, simple. If you believe we can pin down France's view as "consistent" then please provide a source so we can do so.

I note the use of the word "particularly" in the current statement which is a clear WP:PEACOCK term. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept your claim that you are applying a standard - you're applying a standard that suggests that support for the British position will be expressed in the same way as support for the Argentine position. This is not a reasonable assumption. Kahastok talk 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Kahastok's view that ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon and not contesting Argentina's claim is enough to say that a country "has been particularly supportive of the British position". I note also that the two references included in that expression refer to the Falkands War, so I'm applying a 'failed verification' tag. Kahastok, is in your hands now to bring a secondary source backing your opinion. --Langus (t) 17:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please justify the reason for that tag, as on p.166 of Gustafson, Gustafson states that "France has been particularly vocal in its support for Britain", I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting directly. And could you explain why we need "renewed evidence", since we have reliable sources stating that France has supported the UK and as you advocate that we're not allowed to question reliable sources by our own original research. Speculating that French support of a close ally has changed is of course your original research and demanding we prove a negative is of course impossible. Equally, you appear to apply a double standard in that countries that have been equivocal in supporting any one country you appear to insist we state as unconditionally supporting Argentina based on one source, whilst ignoring others which indicate the oppposite. I would be grateful if you could outline your logic in selecting which source to use in that respect. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For info see [2] Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok this is an encyclopedia. What we do is write articles with relevant and properly sourced information. If a vast number of countries choose to be more vocal about their support for the Argentinian position, it is not our position to apply some "standard" and obscure mentions of this support just because other countries are not doing the same for the UK claim.

As this source clearly states [3] the EU remains neutral about the Falklands/Malvinas issue and the fact that the islands are included in the Lisbon treaty is "merely descriptive" and even more "This does not imply acknowledgement of UK sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas by EU members. This must be defined bilaterally between the UK and Argentina". Seeing that the Lisbon treaty does not imply support for the UK position, the mention of France as stated in the article is currently 100% wrong. The edit proposed here is much more accurate and I've yet to see a reason by Kahastok as to why it shouldn't be added. I'll await some reason or else simply make the edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@WCM: Leaving aside the original paraphrasing, you should note that Gustafson's book is dated 1988. It's been 25 years since. "Has been" implies continuity up to today: see present perfect continuous. When Gustafson uses the expression, you should read "Up to 1988, France has been...".

You said: "since we have reliable sources stating that France has supported the UK". We agree on that: we do have RS stating that France has supported the UK. But we don't have RS stating that France has been supportive to the UK (remember: present perfect continuous + January 2013 --although a source dated 2003 would still be acceptable). Per WP:BURDEN, it's not up to me to bring secondary sources saying that now things have change.

May I suggest switching the past tense as shown above? I think that would settle it. --Langus (t) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out Britain doesn't demand a statement in support every week, so why would there be regular and continuous statements of support? It doesn't matter that a book is dated 1988, its been regularly reprinted and the author has seen no need to revise it. You are conducting original research through speculation that things might have changed and demanding a different burden of proof should apply. The statement should reflect the source, that is all, we should not be interpreting it as you wish to do. If we go back to a previous example, I questioned the use of Lopez as a cite, noting that Lopez claimed Goebel supported his hypothesis. I simply pointed out that Goebel did not and questioned your insistence on the use of Lopez, at which point you were adamant I could not use WP:COMMON but had to knowingly repeat a false claim verbatim. On that occasion you were absolutely adamant I couldn't question a source but here again you're using your own speculation as sufficient reason. I'm struggling to see the logic, consistency of approach or the justification for the tag you applied, since the source verifies the statement and you've given no sustainable reason for adding it. If you cannot, then I request you remove it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence implies current support when the sources do not. The book is 25 years old and the article talks about support during the 1982 war (31 years have passed). I've changed the tag to one I believe to be more precise, please tell me if I'm mistaken. Once again: we either come up with a current source stating France's support or we re-phrase the statement. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

UNASUR mention

I propose to change the mention of a list of south american countries currently in the article (Peru, Berazil, etc..) by the sentence:

• Through a communique issued by the UNASUR on November 2012, the totality of the South American states (with the exception of the French Guiana, an overseas region of France and Paraguay which was suspended as a member following the ouster of the country's former president, Fernando Lugo, and thus not present at the meeting), have stated their support towards Argentina regarding the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute, while at the same time rejecting the possible outcome of the referendum that will take place on 2013 on the Falkland Islands. The member states also urged the UK to resume negotiations with Argentina, in conformity with the declarations of the UN and the OAS.
  

This has the benefit that it does not list countries (something Wee and Kahastok oppose) and its far simpler to source. If no one opposes in the next days, I'll make the edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Again I note that it's a call for negotiations, not Argentinians sovereignty claims. Slatersteven (talk)

I remain opposed for reasons already expressed. Kahastok talk 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Slatersteven: If you check the declaration (last paragraph) you'll see it is not just a call for negotiations but rather a full support for the Argentinian position. This is what it says (I can help translate it if you want to):

• Los Estados miembros de UNASUR reiteran su firme respaldo a los legítimos derechos de la República Argentina en la disputa de soberanía con el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte sobre las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos circundantes y ratifican el permanente interés regional en que el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte se avenga a reanudar las negociaciones con la República Argentina a fin de encontrar -a la mayor brevedad posible- una solución pacífica y definitiva a esa disputa, de conformidad con los lineamientos de la comunidad internacional y las resoluciones y declaraciones pertinentes de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) y de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA).

(bolded by me) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"and ratifying the permanent regional interest in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should agree to resume negotiations with Argentina in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute," Seems to me it backs neither side but says that both sides claims need to be addresses and that Argentinians as a legitimate right to demand negotiations, I see nothing here that says they support Argentinians sovereignty (As long as British interest are also taken into account). In fact what it seems to be talking about is the issue of the referendum and right of self determination, not sovereignty.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me correct your translation a bit: "and ratify the permanent regional interest in that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland resume negotiations with Argentina..." It is both a full support for Argentina and a call to the UK to resume negotiations (noting that they back the Argentinian position). The first part leaves no room for doubting the support: "The UNASUR member states reiterated their strong support for the legitimate rights of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas" (bolded by me). It states verbatim a "strong support" for the Argentinian position on the issue and later on asks the UK to resume negotiations. The Mercopress source used in my proposed edit refers to the previous UNASUR meeting, I just noticed (the last one took place on Nov 2012 in Lima). These sources make the support stated in the last meeting more clear [4][5][6]. I also note that since Paraguay was suspended from UNASUR its support for the Argentinian position should not be added since it was not present in that meeting. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You are cherry picking, the statement refers to the issue of the islanders right of self determination and unilateral action, not sovereignty. It is Argentina's position on those that the statement supports. I suggest we take this to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears we are not finding a common ground here so yes, perhaps the best is to request external opinion. Should I open the ticket or do you want to do it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You should, it's your source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've amended the proposed edit a bit. Please tell me what you think of it and if you still think we should request help at RSN. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ibero-American summit

The current mention of this summit is quite short simply stating "The Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations." I propose to change this sentence to:

• The Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations "within the framework of the resolutions of the UN and the OAS, and the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of territorial integrity". The countries members of this summit have repeatedly backed Argentina in its calls to restore negotiations while asking the UK to refrain "from taking unilateral decisions involving changes in the situation of the Falkland Islands in accordance with Resolution 31/49 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which do not contribute to a final settlement of the territorial dispute."

which adds more information about the outcome of the summit. This edit also allows us to remove the mention to the OAS so as to not repeat the same countries in each summit. Please discuss this change here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree is too short, but I also think that the proposal is too long... one longer sentence would be optimal IMO. --Langus (t) 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain opposed for reasons already expressed. Kahastok talk 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How about:

• The Ibero-American Summit has backed Argentina in its calls to restore negotiations "within the framework of the resolutions of the UN and the OAS, and the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of territorial integrity", while asking the UK to refrain from taking unilateral decisions involving changes in the situation of the islands.

I think its more concise this way. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy between this History of the Falkland Islands

Is all the historical detail in this article necessary? It seems the detailed information should be in History of the Falkland Islands, with a short summary in this article. Khendon (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that the two have similar but not identical goals. Whereas History of the Falkland Islands gives the history of the islands, this article gives the history of the dispute. There is certainly going to be a fair amount of overlap, but the emphasis should be different and there may be different decisions in terms of content (things that may be relevant to the islands' history but that had no effect on the dispute, or vice versa). Kahastok talk 13:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Convention of Settlement - Secondary sources

[7] Our History, Our people

A more than adequate cite that the British considered the matter settled in 1850

Anticipating the usual objections....

A number of historians have commented on the relation of the Convention of Settlement to the Falklands dispute. The Mexican diplomat and historian Carlos Pereyra considers that General Rosas gave up the claim to the Falklands in order end Britain's involvement in the River Plate. Pereyra adds that the effect of the Convention was as if it had had an unwritten article stating that “Britain retained the Falkland Islands.” Pereyra’s book was reprinted in Buenos Aires in 1944, with the same statements.

The impact of the treaty was also raised in a 1950 debate on Argentina's claim to the Falklands by a member of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Absalón Rojas. Rojas complained that the treaty restoring “perfect friendship” between Britain and Argentina without any reference to the Falklands was a serious omission and a weak point of the Argentine claim. As a result Rojas blamed General Rosas for the loss of the Falklands.

Other Argentine historians have indicated that the Convention of Settlement has a negative impact upon Argentina's modern sovereignty claim. These include historian Ernesto Fitte and Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín. Both indicate that the omission of any mention of the Falklands in the treaty was a “a concession to Britain or a culpable oversight”. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: do you own any of these books, or are you just trusting in a flawed source like Pascoe & Pepper's Getting it Right? --Langus (t) 23:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Pereyra, Burnet-Merlin and Fitte I got from the British Library collection on loan, there is a system in British libraries that allows you to borrow books from the collection. The Diario de Sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados was harder, had to get a friend in Den Haag to do some photocopying. So no I don't own them but I have done my own research. Thank you for your concern.

Equally i don't consider Pepper and Pascoe flawed, they always check out when i verify their claims for myself. Unlike Lopez for example or several other sources you like to quote. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll get Fitte's Cronicas soon. In the meanwhile, would you mind to quote Fitte on how exactly the Convention of Settlement had a negative impact upon Argentine claim? To be honest, I have the impression that Pascoe & Pepper tend to cite authors that actually don't support their thesis.

BTW regarding congressman Absalon Rojas, you'll find enlightening the rebuttal by his peer John William Cooke (Cooke was a Peronist and Rojas from the opposing party). Here you can read it online (page 390). --Langus (t) 04:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Really that is just breathtaking hypocrisy. You lambasted me relentlessly for pointing out that Lopez was misrepresenting Goebel, you force an edit into self-determination by misrepresenting sources and then airily dismiss sources by criticism through speculation. I do hope you will apologise when you find you're wrong. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And the quote? You could prove me wrong right now. I don't understand why would you think I'd owe you an apology for being wary of P&P... evidently you're taking this too personally. If I'm wrong I'll have no problem in recognizing so. We're humans after all. --Langus (t) 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No I was referring to your comments at WP:DRN and other places accusing me of OR and SYN for simply having the temerity to point out that Goebel did not make the statement attributed to him by Lopez. You were adamant I could not question a source I knew to be wrong, as opposed to a source you simply speculate is wrong.

Oh and btw you demanded a source, its been more than adequately sourced, so do I take it you'll stop removing it from the article?

I will get you a quote as soon as I get the scans from archive, patience. You are of course aware that I don't have to and for once doing some of your own research might do you some good. If nothing else it would allow you to appreciate the effort others put into neutral writing.

You could of course help, what does Cresto have to say in Historia de las Islas Malvinas, 2011? I believe he was quite critical of Rosas. You can hardly accuse him of being pro-British. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get Cresto too. And I'll be waiting for that quote. Cheers. --Langus (t) 21:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove International position section

I have often wondered on the value of having the "International position" section for a number of reasons.

1. The position of individual countries depends not on the merits of either claim, rather they are fixed by narrow national self-interest.
2. In most cases, individual countries do not have a strong opinion either way.
3. Its a waste of valuable editing time, resulting in numerous edit wars as Argentina raises the issue at every regional summit, at every session of the UN, at every session of the UN C24 and produces a press statement for every international visit or diplomatic mission. Every occasion is a vital statement of support that simply must be mentioned.

I note that once again, the talk page is paralysed by demands to emphasise the International support for Argentina, whilst at the same time trying to minimise that for Britain. I think the time has come to simply consider removing it altogether as it does not add materially to the article. Referring to other articles concerning sovereignty dispute, none feel the need to state International positions.

Spratly Islands dispute, Senkaku Islands dispute, Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain, Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute, Sino-Indian border dispute

Why should this article have a separate section that doesn't materially add to the article, results in numerous unnecessary edit wars and in many cases is simply a vehicle for claiming support for Argentina, when in most cases such support is equivocal at best. I realise this will de-emphasise the support that the UK has but I don't think it has a material effect for WP:NPOV. I am therefore proposing to remove this section. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

[8] introduced by now banned user User:Astrotrain see [9] Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this change. I think it's fair to say that the whole section causes significantly more trouble than it is worth, and deletion would be of net benefit to the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I also support this change. As Kahastok and also most countries views are weak on the matter, they'll agree at conferences but not follow up as it is of little interest to most. Which is probably why it hards to source anything. Additional unless a third party promised support in a war it would make little difference anyway. Bevo74 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm against this change. I think the information is useful and undoubtedly adds to the article. It worries me to think that article content could be being removed just to satisfy a POV, as it already happened to the Argentina's position on islanders citizenship section.

Also, note that the editor who introduced this section did so in the context of a major article expansion: see before and after. --Langus (t) 19:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the change, too, per Kahastok's reasoning. Apcbg (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As a way of dealing with a lot of dubiously-notable individual items which together might amount to something definitely-notable, what about a comment along the lines of "Various expressions of support have been made for the Argentine position (refs), for the British position (refs), and for a negotiated settlement (refs)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this move. Although I have not particiapted, I have watched it and it is little more than a "My daddy is bigger than your daddy" type battle. Martinvl (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is really hard to believe. The section apparently was perfectly alright (specially according to editors Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok who defended its state time after time) until not long ago, but after I start bringing in sourced and current information that demonstrates that the section is terribly pro-British biased, then the section has to go. The section is of vital value since it shows the position of the rest of the world regarding the issue, it amazes me that its removal is being proposed. I of course oppose 100% and I note that editors Wee and Kahastok have blanket reverted my edits giving as reasons only vague statements of POV and "not consensus". Kahastok: your continuous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude saying "I've already said why" when everyone here knows that you did not, has not go unnoticed.
If the reason for wanting to remove this section is that it introduces a lot of work to the article, then I propose moving it to its own article: International position regarding the Falkland Islands. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that User:Gaba p opposes move but also that his comments relate only to editors not content below. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Separate section for comments on individual editors

I would be grateful if editors could confine comments on editors to this section. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I've never been happy this was appropriate and that content fork is not appropriate. Please note the comments on content. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have again moved the rambling personal attack to a separate section, simply because such rambling personal attacks have become a ruse for long tendentious discussions that have no relation to content and a means of blocking progress in any discussion. Feel free to report this to WP:ANI but I feel this is definitely in accordance with WP:IAR, I have not modified your comment in any way shape or form and I'm not refactoring the discussion. If of course you do go to WP:ANI your aggressive personal attacks will be scrutinised so watch out for that WP:BOOMERANG. If you have a comment on content rather than editors you are welcome to contribute to the content discussion above. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of section titled "International position"

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

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

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

Bold text=== Survey ===

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

• Support Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Kahastok talk 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Apcbg (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Martinvl (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bevo74 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Gaba p (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Langus (t) 19:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ambivalent Do what reliable sources do. (Hohum ^@) 15:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support NE Ent 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reduce to one sentence with multiple refs. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- Scjessey (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an odd way to resolve a content dispute; delete everything! Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my comment below. I am uninvolved editor whose comment is based on this invitation of RfC bot. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support the whole section doesnt seem to advance the artcicle and seems more a source of edit warring. Also its a singular feature, compared to the content of similar articles.There is no comparable section in India Pakistan border disputes for example. Its also very anal. Irondome (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

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

Sovereignty disputes are inherently international, since they address the question of whether the community of states recognizes one or more state's sovereignty over a certain area. If the comments by pro-Argentine states are very similar as is stated in the RFC question, like "a call for negotiations nothing more", then they can be succinctly summarized rather than individually listed. But the rationale that "Argentina continuously raises the subject, whereas the UK does not" is not a legitimate reason to sanitize mentions of international controversy. Furthermore, the comment on countries' "narrow national self-interest" is judgmental and inappropriate, since the pro-Argentine position is well-known to cite ideological justifications, such as anti-colonialism. Shrigley (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth bearing in mind that we can reasonably suggest that a lot of countries would put this dispute somewhere pretty close to the bottom of their list of foreign policy priorities. We have a lot of countries out there that don't give two hoots and aren't going to let the fact that Argentina (and it generally is Argentina) is insisting on a statement in support of their position get in the way of their important trade deal that is otherwise all agreed. In some cases, we can demonstrate that they supported (or appeared to support) both sides within the space of a few weeks. Kahastok talk 20:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sovereignty disputes are by definition international, because sovereignty pertains to states, and any dispute would have more than one state involved which makes it international. And no, sovereignty disputes do not address possible recognition by “the community of states.” Why should they? Apcbg (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The comments calling for negotiations are currently summarised in the form you suggest and that is pretty much the format we have tried to follow for some time. However, the reason for my comment if you refer to the discussions above is that the constant raising of the issue by Argentina is used to justify adding mention of numerous summits and demanding we produce chronological proof that it be proved that say France for example still supports the UK position. Now whilst I accept your criticism that frustration with the constant POV pushing and edit wars that result from the inclusion of this sanction has prompted my suggestion, the fact that other articles on sovereignty disputes don't include such a problematic section does indicate it is perhaps unwarranted. However, as noted above the support is pretty equivocal and several countries have made contradictory statements on the issue. Given that its pretty lukewarm for all the rhetoric it does seem more trouble that its worth. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: do take note of how an uninvolved editor expressed his view that international position is of encyclopedic value in the context of an international dispute, and the three editors jumped to his neck without refuting this idea. It is disruptive, the arguments have already been expressed.

"The support is pretty equivocal" >> yes, according to Wee Curry Monster (WP:OR). "In some cases, we can demonstrate that they supported (or appeared to support) both sides" >> and you're choosing instead to delete content?? Why??

The wording in the RFC alone should hint editors that this proposal is the real POV push ( this is not the first time). A push that sadly seems will work out, as in WP consensus beats NPOV everytime... --Langus (t) 00:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Langus please note that the comments preceding yours relate to content, no one is attacking the commentator. Note also his comments on content are the polar opposite of what you espouse but actually reflect what the very editors you're commenting on have suggested. And finally yet again, I simply note your comment is a none too subtle personal attack accusing me of POV pushing. If another uninvolved editor sees fit to remove your comment as I suggest comments on editors should be removed, then please note they have my express and unreserved permission to remove mine also. I am tired of discussions being filibustered by comments on editors not content. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do explain me how I am exactly commenting on you. "Your comment is a none too subtle personal attack accusing me of POV" --then your last comment is an EXPLICIT personal attack accusing me of POV!!! (wtf?)

"Note also his comments on content are the polar opposite of what you espouse but actually reflect what the very editors you're commenting on have suggested" -- ok, this is beyond me....... --Langus (t) 23:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, so you suggest that the resolution to remove this section was for POV reasons and that isn't a comment on the originator. And yet again we see you filibustering in a demand I answer you question, when the answer is plain enough. The originator suggests we don't need to mention every summit and that is the polar opposite of what you are pushing for. And no it isn't a personal attack its a comment on your content proposal. Please not the survey above indicates a clear consensus for the proposal. As another editor once observed, those who shout the loudest about bias and POV pushing are usually the worst offenders. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The information is relevant to this article and should not be removed. What is the reasoning here? It's too much work to find sources so let's just take it out? Kahastok's and Wee's claims can be summed up by the following points:

• "In some cases, we can demonstrate that they supported (or appeared to support) both sides within the space of a few weeks"<-- I believe you are referring to the Caribbean. Why not say this then? Why not produce a sourced statement that reflects this?
• "the constant raising of the issue by Argentina is used to justify adding mention of numerous summits" <-- Only two summits where to be mentioned (Ibero-American summit and the UNASUR declaration) and nobody asked to mention any more. You can check this talk page to see that one of my proposed edits aimed at doing exactly this by removing an outdated OAS mention amd leaving only a mention to this two.
• "demanding we produce chronological proof that it be proved that say France for example still supports the UK position" <-- Demanding a source to back a statement is disruptive now?? If France is being mentioned as still supporting the British claim, is it disruptive to ask a source that says that much??
• "as noted above the support is pretty equivocal and several countries have made contradictory statements on the issue"<-- As noted above this is only true (apparently) for the Caribbean. Latin America backs Argentina in its claim without any doubt, which the last UNASUR meeting proves. Once again: why not mention in the article this dichotomy by Caribbean countries?

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

Just a few thoughts;

1. How recent is recent, just because a position has not been repeated it doesn't mean it doesn't still hold true. The Treaty of Windsor still holds from 1386, so does that mean Portugal backs the UK position of self-deterination?
2. If there is a change of government is the country's position assumed to have reverted to neutral?
3. If a country has a view does to it have to express it regularly for it to be valid?
4. What constitutes support, do all the EU countries back the UK position as the EU recognises the Islands' sovereignty being with the UK?
5. Where do the Caribbean countries fit in as UNASUR and Commonwealth members?
6. Do countries express views for genuine reasons or for their owns reasons? E.g. If Iran backed Argentina's desires, should be this been given equal weight to say the Spanish view? So it becomes mere count of countries Bevo74 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yours is a nice collection indeed; perhaps these questions would be more easily answered if one has beforehand the answer to the following Question 0: In what way does the support by third parties matter in a sovereignty dispute? Apcbg (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're seriously saying that in an international dispute the support by third party countries has no relevance?

@Bevo74: if you have a source from the last 10 or even 15 years stating that France was "particularly supportive of the British position" at that point in time, I'll take it as valid for a statement about now. How hard could that be? Maybe the expression is original research, haven't you thought about that? Well, you can add it as a further thought then. --Langus (t) 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer Question 0, did you? In what way exactly does the support by third countries matter in a sovereignty dispute? Apcbg (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74:

1. Good question, that's why a clarification is needed wouldn't you agree? Saying that a country "has been" supportive of a position when the most recent source to back that claim is 25 years old is a bit confusing I'd say. Why not state what both sources say then? That France was supportive of the British position during the 1982 war (it could even we extended to the period until the book used as a source was written), what is wrong with accurately using a source?
2. I'd say that until the new government makes a new opposing statement the position remains what it was (support or oppose). Why would we assume it changes automatically when no statement to back that change exists?
3. Not necessarily, but it does need to express it to be mentioned and reliably sourced. The key word here is "sources", if we have them we can use them.
4. This one is easier, please see what the EU ambassador stated on early 2012 about the inclusion of the islands on the Lisbon Treaty.[10] The position of the EU members is clearly neutral (regarding this treaty) unless we can find sources for a given country backing the UK.
5. The statement by UNASUR is clear in its support to the Argentinian position and also for a calling that the UK resumes negotiations. The issue with the Caribbean countries (two of which are a part of UNASUR) that backed the UK in a summit recently can of course be mentioned since we can properly source it. What is wrong with this?
6. What reasons make a country backs or not a claim is not for us to interpret. If we can source it, we can add it. Regarding the "list" of countries I'd say that the "relevance" of a country is not for us to decide. If there's support for either side (say, by Iran) and we can source it, then why not add it? We are talking about the "International position" on the matter, what makes Iran (for example) not suited to be mentioned? Who are we to decide which country is worthy of being mentioned?

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

Reply to Gaba p

1. Good question, that's why a clarification is needed wouldn't you agree? Saying that a country "has been" supportive of a position when the most recent source to back that claim is 25 years old is a bit confusing I'd say. Why not state what both sources say then? That France was supportive of the British position during the 1982 war (it could even we extended to the period until the book used as a source was written), what is wrong with accurately using a source?
2. I'd say that until the new government makes a new opposing statement the position remains what it was (support or oppose). Why would we assume it changes automatically when no statement to back that change exists?
3. Not necessarily, but it does need to express it to be mentioned and reliably sourced. The key word here is "sources", if we have them we can use them.
4. This one is easier, please see what the EU ambassador stated on early 2012 about the inclusion of the islands on the Lisbon Treaty.[11] The position of the EU members is clearly neutral (regarding this treaty) unless we can find sources for a given country backing the UK.
5. The statement by UNASUR is clear in its support to the Argentinian position and also for a calling that the UK resumes negotiations. The issue with the Caribbean countries (two of which are a part of UNASUR) that backed the UK in a summit recently can of course be mentioned since we can properly source it. What is wrong with this?
6. What reasons make a country backs or not a claim is not for us to interpret. If we can source it, we can add it. Regarding the "list" of countries I'd say that the "relevance" of a country is not for us to decide. If there's support for either side (say, by Iran) and we can source it, then why not add it? We are talking about the "International position" on the matter, what makes Iran (for example) not suited to be mentioned? Who are we to decide which country is worthy of being mentioned?

1. The problem comes with the tense of the statement, France and Chile did support the UK position. The problem comes with imposing an arbitrary time limit. As the Latin American countries make annoucement quite often, where as the Anglo and Europeans do not it would be difficult to impose a limit that was not POV.
2. Chile is again a problem, in a democracy less large shifts happen, but if a latin American goverment is otherthrown, the new dictators could well have different views on Argentina and the UK.
3. As a wikipedian I certainly agree about sources, but due to the availability of recent enough sources this would certainly leave the section looking very pro-Argentinian. Would be better to move the sources to the current claims section?
4. Very true about the EU. A better example would be NATO. Does membership of NATO imply that a country such as Turkey backs the UK?
5. For the 'Anglo-Caribbean' nations' position to be included, certainly needs well sourcing, but leaves, the section looking weaker if countries have contradictory positions.
6. I agree that we should not be placing weight on countries' stated opinions either based on influence or potential politicking. To me, this is a reason to rethink the point of this section as will merely become a list of countries. I had mentioned Iran as its'goverment is very anti-UK, for reasons far removed from this subject.

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

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

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

Wee the issue is being discussed, you can participate if you want to. Should I present diffs here of you saying to me how a vote is not a mandate and issues should be discussed with to goal of obtaining a consensus? I'd appreciate it if those people who voted also took the time to discuss the matter. I think we should give time to hear the reasons from these other editors too, don't you agree?

I note that summaries of "filibustering" are not helpful. I also note that once again you make an untrue statement: nobody is demanding for every summit regarding the issue to be mentioned. Care to point to who exactly is "demanding" this according to you? Because I recall saying specifically: "Only two summits where to be mentioned (Ibero-American summit and the UNASUR declaration) and nobody asked to mention any more. You can check this talk page to see that one of my proposed edits aimed at doing exactly this by removing an outdated OAS mention and leaving only a mention to this two.". Isn't this clear enough for you?

Expressions like "(Argentina) will flounce off in the huff when they don't get it" and "the president of Argentina had a missy fit and stormed out" are not only extremely unhelpful but demonstrate that your position on the matter is clearly pro-British. I'd suggest you try to keep them to a minimum.

In what way is "deductive reasoning" to say that all state members present at the signing of the last declaration of the UNASUR supporting the Argentinian claim, actually support the Argentinian claim? The countries who signed that declaration compose all of South America with the exception of the French Guyana and Paraguay (suspended at the time) which is what my edit specifically says (please see the UNASUR mention section above). You claim it is OR and SYN to group the countries below the title "South America"?

Regarding Apcbg's question: the position of the international community is important because it puts pressure on both parties and can indicate which side has the bigger support by current political standards. Why do you take this to be an irrelevant piece of information? Regards Gaba p (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74:

1. Again the key word is "sources". If France or (Chile) supported the UK during the war but decided to not be vocal about its support from there on, then of course this decision will have an impact on how the position of said country is presented. If its last statement of support (that can be sourced) is from 25 years ago and France decided to not mention this support ever since, why should we assume the support is still there? If we can source it, we can say it. At the moment all we can say about France is that it was supportive during the war, what is POV about this?
2. I don't see why Chile is a problem. Its position backing Argentina can be thoroughly documented in present times (the UNASUR declaration is one of those sources). I don't get your mention of dictatorships, if a country is overthrown (or an election takes place) and the head of state changes then nothing changes until they so decide to make a statement about the issue which we can source. Again: why would we assume that a change in the president of a country would automatically mean a change in support for the issue? If they pronounce themselves about it, then we can source it and edit its position accordingly.
3. The section will look like the sources make it look. It is not our position to obscure sources or statements just because they show a bigger support for one side or the other. Doing that would definitely be editing with a POV.
4. I have no idea about NATO but will look into it. If there's a statement signed by any number of countries that support the British position then of course we mention it.
5. We can mention and source the contradictory position of those Caribbean countries who decided to back both positions. We don't need to make any judgments about this, we only mention this "double-backing" and source it.
6. If a country decided to be vocal about support to any party then why not mention it? Who are we to decide on the reasons that made any country support a given position? Even worst, who are we to decide that the position of a given country does not count because blah, blah..? If the country made its position public then we can source it and mention it, nothing more.

I hope this appropriately answers the issues you presented, if not please do tell me and I'll try to be more clear about it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed consensus is not a vote , its about strength of argument, though you frequently base claims of consensus claiming weight of numbers. But here you're not advancing an argument, you're simply repeating the same points over and again. It is filibustering posting huge tracts of text, demanding detailed answers but you don't actually address the fundamental question. Why do we need this section? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't address the questions? Wee, I took the time to address Bevo74's question one by one and I took the time to answer the issues you raised also one by one. So if I put all this effort it's "filibustering posting huge tracts of text" but at the same time I'm not addressing the questions? There's no way I could ever satisfy your demands of brevity and full answers at the same time, you realize that right?

Regarding Apcbg's question, let me copy/paste my answer that apparently you missed above: "the position of the international community is important because it puts pressure on both parties and can indicate which side has the bigger support by current political standards. Why do you take this to be an irrelevant piece of information?". Is this enough for you? As advancing on the argument, I repeat: I took the time to address the issues raised by the only editor here that took the time to raise some (Bevo74) If you have more questions than the one you just did, please do ask them and I'll try to answer them as fully as possible.

I note that the section is currently under work (above this section). I also note that you do not simply want to remove this section from the article, you also opposed the moving of this section to its own article. So your position is not just "lets remove this from this article because its a lot of work" but actually "lets completely remove this information from Wikipedia". I can't stand behind this position of yours, it's not sensible. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: once again the repeated accusation of "filibustering" in your summaries[12][13] are extremely unhelpful. I'd appreciate it if you would please stop. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you're not answering Bevo74's points, you are simply restating the same position you held previously. This is filibustering as is demanding detailed answers to your tendentious arguments. If you filibuster I will comment on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. There is no POV issue in reporting the position of countries that chose to be vocal about their support for one side or the other. Your position that since Argentina has succeed in getting more support than the UK our reporting of such support is POV has no logic whatsoever. We report what we can source. If no country has voiced its support for the British position then we can not include it. There is absolutely no POV issue in reporting what the sources say. You know this, Kahastok knows this, everyone knows this. We could open a DRN if you wish to ask if it's POV to report what we can properly source.
2. You have no power to decide which country "matters". This is actually offensive. If a country has voiced their opinion and we can source it, why not add it? If we can group countries rather than listing them one by one (like I'm trying to do with UNASUR), even better.
3. Wee, I will not comment on your political analysis regarding Argentina and its "trading partners" as it is clearly WP:OR and has no place here.
4. "The purpose of an RFC us to elicit outside comment", you've said it my friend. An RFC is not about votes but on gathering people to comment about the issue at hand. I note that three "outside" editors have commented here: Shrigley, who opposed its removal; Bevo74, who made a series of valid questions and said: "I don't think any one of the above is enough to remove the section on its' own, but enough weaknesses are there to mean it will forever be a POV battleground"; and Peter James, who said "International responses and actions are relevant, but could probably be presented,chronologically and restricted to the more significant ones". All of the "outside" editors who commented on this RFC agreed that the removal of the section was not the appropriate path. Will you respect the consensus? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74 is not an outside commentator. His first comment is from 6 days before the RFC. Plus, he's been contributing to various Falklands-related articles since at least Feb 2012.[14][15][16] --Langus (t) 19:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How do reliable sources, which are only about the sovereignty dispute, deal with the positions of other countries and bodies? Isn't that the yardstick we are supposed to use for inclusion and weight? (Hohum ^@) 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hohum: do you mean how much weight do sources give to a given country's (or body of countries) position or if the positions of other countries are listed in reliable sources? Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Both. Although a lack of inclusion would tend to mean zero weight. (Hohum ^@) 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree there is currently quite reasonable grounds for removing it at this time. I will hold off from doing so until the debate from outside contributors reaches its natural conclusion.

I am disappointed but unsurprised that my comments on the reasons for removing this section have not been answered. I will take that as simply confirmation that a reasonable logical answer could not be formulated. Equally I note that yet again you've simply stated the same position again; a perfect example of filibustering.

Noting Gaba p's comments I will respond, once, thus:

1. You are not referring to countries that have chosen to be vocal in supporting Argentina, you are referring to countries that have voted for a motion tabled by Argentina at various international summits. Some have taken token action that is all. References to press statements made after the conference are not suitable sources to use for the opinion of individual countries.
2. I simply note that no one has made a comment on which countries opinion matters, that is a straw man constructed for needless argumentative hogwash. The comment is that the position taken by various countries at any one time is not necessarily suitable for inclusion in this article.
3. You presume my comments are WP:OR, they are in fact based on observations in political commentaries. An example of WP:OR would be to refer to a press statement issued by UNASUR, claim all South American countries are members and synthesise an edit claiming that the totality of South American countries support Argentina. I simply note you ignored a point you couldn't refute by falsely alleging it to be WP:OR.
4. The majority of outside comments suggest that the content should be based on WP:RS, ideally neutral 3rd party academic sources. I trust you'll note I've been making that point to you for months. The fact remains the strength of argument leans toward deletion at this present time.

Now Gaba, please feel free to have the WP:LASTWORD as usual, I would have assumed someone of more than average intelligence might realise your argumentative style is counter productive and merely reinforcing the secondary reason I give for removing this section. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment:
  1. One of the four notions of sovereignty is "formal recognition by other sovereign states". If there are other articles on sovereignty disputes they should contain this section if there are sources for its content.
  2. Yes, there are probably countries which position is clear and those whose position is not clear. Lack of clear position is also a position which should be presented to the readers
  3. narrow national self-interests should be explained
  4. eventual edit wars are not a valid argument to delete article's content
  5. same goes for the content of comments
• I think that this is not a RfC. This is a poll and I am not sure if it is properly organized. Still I will write my opinion above, which is that I am opposed to removal of the section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have followed the guidelines suggested at WP:RFC pretty much to the letter, if you can identify where I have failed I would be grateful for the feedback. In answer to your comment. The reason for suggested removal is not the endless edit wars, rather one of relevance and conformance with the style of similar articles. As regards relevance, neutral 3rd party sources on the dispute touch on International position only obliquely instead focusing on other issues such as territorial integrity vs self-determination. I otherwise agree with all of the points you make, thank you for commenting. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that RfC was not properly organized. I said "This is a poll and I am not sure if it is properly organized." Poll. Not RfC. I was uncertain if this poll was organized properly because according to the guideline Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion: "Content issues are almost never subject to polling."

Since you mentioned RfC I took a closer look at it. I noticed that you actually did not follow the request procedure for RfC.

• You requested the comment with this edit and added "... noting that its presence is currently paralysing discussion in the talk page and results in numerous personal attacks and other disruptive behaviour." - By doing that you violated RfC procedure which says "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template.". Your statement was far from being neutral.
• Next step of the procedure says: Save the talk page. Now you're done. The RfC bot will take care of the rest, including posting the RfC in the proper RfC lists. It may take the bot up to a day to list the RfC, so be patient. - Did you follow it? No. You copied position of other editors who already participated in the discussion, including your own although you wrote in RfC statement that you expect comments "from none involved editors". Then you accused another editor for personal attack (diff) and misinterpreted the discussion claiming there is " a fairly clear consensus to remove this section," which is incorrect.
• I am afraid that your editing is disruptive and aimed to circumvent the normal process of consensus.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would accept your criticism that I should not have referred to the ongoing disruption and POV editing. I accept that by doing so I have effectively undermined my reasoning for starting the RFC ie my belief it was irrelevant but that the disruption was a secondary reason for removing it. Thank for you pointing that out, I will take it on board.

I do however feel that it was maybe harsh commenting on copying other users comments into the RFC. However, I can see your point I should have allowed editors to do it for themselves, including those for the proposal as well as those opposed. Thank you again for pointing out my mistake in that respect, I will take it on board.

May I ask if you believe I was incorrect in that I believed I was being attacked personally? As the originator of a proposal, if the editor suggested it was done for POV reasons, would you not agree it seemed personally targeted. Yes I was irritated but would you not agree they should have commented on content not the editor? It is difficult not to wish to defend your comments when it is alleged the motives for doing so are contrary to the 5 pillars.

Can I ask how I've circumvented the normal process of consensus other than the mistakes I've acknowledged? Wee Curry Monster talk 01:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Martin Hogbin

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

It's a content dispute, sure, but that doesn't meant that there are not good reasons to remove it entirely. I would argue that the fact of near-constant content dispute can often point to a wider problem with the article or section - that suggests that it probably never belonged in the first place. I've dealt with this in other articles where I came to question a particular point and it turned out the entire premise of the section was on dodgy grounds. This is the same.

In this case, having an international positions section is unusual to begin with on an article about such a dispute. Most do not have any such section. And note that the section is primarily based not on the notions of weight given by reliable secondary sources but on news coverage dedicated to the summits and statements made - and in some cases the primary text of the declarations made. These, I would suggest, do not provide any evidence about appropriate weight, and I would note that I have not seen any evidence as of yet that any weight on this section is appropriate. The only place where we rely on a book is ironically the one that editors above are actually trying to tone down, arguing that it specifically refers to the 1982 war.

Removing the section does not just relieve Wikipedia of the continual edit wars and disputes but also relieves it of a section that does not, and it appears cannot, be made to meet our content policies. Kahastok talk 13:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The "near-constant content dispute" is 100% fueled by you and Wee (and Apcbg at times) removing properly sourced content from the section. Please walk me through your argument because I don't follow you: how is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to mention in the section the things we can reliably source? What "proper weight" are you talking about? We are mentioning what we can source. If you have a source for a given country backing the UK claim then please add it, nothing is stopping you. So, here are my questions to you:

1. How is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to mention in the section things we can reliably source?
2. How could this section not be "violating weight" according to you? What changes specifically do you think should be made?
3. Do you agree with Wee that this information should be completely removed from Wikipedia?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: "arguing that it specifically refers to the 1982 war", you argue it does not? Could you back this with any quote from that book please? Gaba p (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, could it be you don't realize that WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV deal with reliably sourced content that is inappropriate for other reasons? Apcbg (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that, because this is a contentious topic, all material should be very well sourced but I can also see that even impeccable sourcing does not guarantee balance within the article. For example if most countries support position A but we can only find sources for countries that support position B, it would be wrong to just put the countries supporting position B in the article as this would present an unbalanced and misleading overall view. If there is absolutely no way of meeting these strict criteria then, I suppose, the section effectively deletes itself but edit wars has never been a valid reason for removing sourced information from WP.

Two ways round the problem might be:

If there is a category of country within which we have good quality sources of information on the great majority of countries in that category then we might include those countries. For example, we can probably give reliable views on nearly all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council so we might have that as a sub-heading with the countries and their positions listed.

For other categories, perhaps we should always start with a high quality secondary source which gives an overview. For example, if we have a source which says, 'Most countries in Europe support position A' then we could list individual European countries without giving an unbalanced view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My point about reliable sources which are only about the subject of the article was intended to mean this: How does a book which is only about the Falklands Island sovereignty dispute, or sovereignty disputes in general, deal with the opinions of other countries and bodies. This should give us guidance on how extensive a section the article should have, and what sort of content it has. I did not mean every news articles about who has what opinion - which although reliable, give us no guidance on whether they should be in this article. How much edit warring it may cause is simply not relevant to inclusion as long as it should otherwise be included.(Hohum ^@) 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both Martin and Hohum, that if we are to retain this section, then its composition should be guided by how it is viewed by neutral third party sources. It would certainly give an idea for content and length. I feel it would be very short however. If I may I would suggest:

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

Check the rear cover and you'll see why I suggest it.

However, Martin I fear that you have rather missed the point. I have in fact suggested we remove it for the reason it is somewhat of an oddity, in that no other article on sovereignty disputes features such a section. And if you were to think it through further, what does the position taken by individual countries matter? The answer is in all probability not a lot. Books on the subject devote pages to issues such as territorial integrity vs self-determination, or the applicability of utis possidetis juris but very little to positions taken by 3rd parties.

The fact that its current inclusion induces numerous edit wars is only of secondary consideration. Further your suggestion of using third party sources is an excellent one, one if you check my contribution history I have been suggesting for months. That would assume that all editors are reasonable and seek to produce a text following NPOV. I regret I don't believe that is the case here (the fairly obvious personal attacks against myself and another editor should give you a clue as should WP:FILIBUSTERS). So far, we have seen such pearls of wisdom as:

• The only source that can be used to describe the Argentine Government position, is statements by the Argentine Government.
• That if a statement is known to be untrue but is stated by the Argentine Government, we have to report it as "true" from the Argentine perspective. We are not allowed to report that neutral 3rd party academic sources question its accuracy.
• Statements from sources repeating the Argentine statements corroborate the Argentine claim if you use a quote.
• I discovered that an author incorrectly quoted another, even if we knew that I could not question quoting a source known to be wrong.
• Although statements can be sourced to a neutral 3rd party academic source, it has no value beyond the date the book was first published; even it has been through several editions since.

So Martin, whilst I thank you for your comments and in particular your suggestion that we should be basing the content on neutral 3rd party sources. Truly that is music to my ears to hear someone reinforcing a point I have made repeatedly. I also very much agree that we shouldn't be basing this on news sources reporting the results of summits. (And before I am accused by other of doing this for POV reasons again, earlier last year I opposed the mention of the 2012 Summit of the Americas where Argentina failed to get the statement it wanted and stormed off in the huff.) However, I do seriously question whether it belongs here at all. I base this point on examples such as Gustafson above, who only mentions the issue obliquely in passing; ie he doesn't have a separate section for it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this.

It's not the edit warring that means it should be deleted per se. But edit warring can be a symptom of a wider problem. The wider problem is that we cannot possibly judge what is due weight here in the absence of reliable secondary sources on the subject, and the section is based almost entirely on news reports.

The fact that some insist that the only possible way we can do this is by listing every statement we can find, indeed, that it is "actually offensive" to do anything else - when the result of such a policy would be to overwhelm the article with information whose relevance to the dispute is questionable at best - demonstrates why this is a problem. Kahastok talk 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how most of the complaints about the section by Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster apply. I was imagining essentially factual information. X supports the British position, Y supports the Argentine position, Z is neutral. I think the US section could be reduced to something along the lines that the US is officially neutral but helped the UK during the Falklands War. Would you not be happy with a simple list of the well sourced positions of countries, subject to my suggestions above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Martin. Kahastok and myself have suggested commentary along the lines you suggest, I don't see any difference between us in that respect. Where we perhaps differ, is that I've always considered the section as superfluous for the reasons stated. Can I ask a few simple questions, would you be prepared to help in preparing such an edit along the lines you suggested? Would you also agree it should be based on what neutral 3rd party academic sources? May I also ask that if those same sources place little weight on it, you would agree with the same weight being added to the article. If you have access to sources such as Gustafson, I would imagine you will see where I'm coming from. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to help reach an agreement which is in accordance with WP policy. Perhaps a good starting point is that we should require consensus for any material present or added to the section.

Regarding sourcing, it was not my intention to try to lay down the law but just to suggest some principles that would help us work together. For example, on individual countries, sources from the country itself, particularly government sources, should be considered reliable. I would suggest that we do not accept British or Argentine sources about the status of other countries.

As I said before though, just because we do have a reliable source does not mean that we must add a country if doing so would present an unbalanced global view.

As a start, would anyone mind if I added a sub-section 'Permanent members of the UN Security Council' which stated the views of those countries. I think this is a significant and relevant grouping of countries for this purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking it as read that you exclude Britain from the equation. This is a standard that we have tried before, but it was shouted down on the argument that it was arbitrary and that if some countries were included all countries had to be included. Clearly, that argument is absurd - I can't think of an issue or dispute in the world in which all outside parties are genuinely equally relevant. But the major problem is, given the lack of appropriate sources on the subject on which due weight can be measured, what (other than your own suggestion) leads you to the conclusion that the P5 will necessarily be the relevant ones?

WP:NPOV is quite clear. We base the weight given to different points in our article on the weight provided by reliable secondary sources on the subject at hand. Outside sources suggest that the appropriate weight here is zero. We should follow that.

I note that a major problem has been editors pushing summits as well as countries. For example, this discussion began when an editor insisted we list the Rio Group summit from 2010 and state or imply based on the statement that all countries present support Argentina. Previous arguments have been that we should include what the same editor would have liked the result of the 2012 Summit of the Americas to be (the summit actually ended inconclusively: President Fernández stormed out after her statement was vetoed). Same editor is currently pushing for a mention of a UNASUR summit claiming that "the totality of the South American states" supports Argentina. He argues that they are neutral because he can source the statement (a pretty serious non sequitur, but never mind).

Now in all these cases, the implication of the user's proposals (that the support for Argentina is clear and unanimous) is rubbish - all of these organisations have members that have expressed support for both sides within the past sixteen months. But perhaps more significantly, the membership of these organisations is largely the same every time. The argument is that all these summits are individually important and individually of strong relevance to the article - even though it's the same countries making the same statement on a different letterhead, year after year, with nothing changed. Now, common sense would suggest that any notion of due weight would at least combine them (as has been the practice) - but we base due weight on the secondary sources on the subject of the dispute as a whole - and that means nothing on any of it. Kahastok talk 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"just because we do have a reliable source does not mean that we must add a country if doing so would present an unbalanced global view", again music to my ears Martin. I agree 100% about presenting a balanced view. Which is diametrically opposite to the view that is paralysing discussions that because it can be sourced it is neutral. Equally we already have sources from some members of the permanent members of the security council, I simply ask you to note that there is an attempt to downplay this claiming the source doesn't validate the statement, it does by the by.

However, I note you have still to address my point. Why should this article be different from the norm? No other article on sovereignty disputes has a similar section. If we look at neutral 3rd party academic sources, the international position is mentioned obliquely and in general I have not seen works that pay much attention to it. Given that these sources pay little attention to it, I ask why should we? Again what does it actually add to the article? I may have missed it but you don't appear to have addressed it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#UNASUR_mention where I state my proposed edit mentioning the UNASUR declaration. The support for the Argentinian position in the issue is hardly arguable. I note that Kahastok and Wee are opposed to mentioning lists of countries but are also opposed to the mention of such countries grouped in a proper form (ie: South America). So basically: they oppose everything.

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

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

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

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

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

1. How is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to mention in the section things we can reliably source?

I have explained how this might be possible. If it just happens that we can only reliably source information that represents a minority view then to report it would be NPOV and misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1. How could this section not be "violating weight" according to you? What changes specifically do you think should be made?

See my suggestions above.

1. Do you agree with Wee that this information should be completely removed from Wikipedia?

No, provided that we meet WP criteria in all respects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Does the call for using only neutral 3rd party sources and not secondary news sources apply also to articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? If so, what would this decision imply for that article in particular?

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

@Martin Hogbin: "If it just happens that we can only reliably source information that represents a minority view then to report it would be NPOV and misleading", you loose me here. As I understand it, if we can't reliably source something then it doesn't exist as far as WP is concerned. If a country has chosen not to be vocal about its support for the position of either party, then its position can't be sourced and therefore, to us, it hasn't taken a position and we can't mention it. If 90% of countries that chose to be vocal about their support have done so to support a given party, how is reporting this not NPOV? My point is: if we can source it, then we can add it. If there's no source for it, then we can't. Nothing more.

I would have no problem with a P5 sub-section. Note that the US' and China's position is already in there and France's position is currently under dispute since we could find no source for it "current" support and the only sources point to its support of UK during the war. I think I can find something about Russia which would be the one missing. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, I don't propose to respond in detail as I have previously noted your demand for detailed answers to your comments is a classic example of WP:FILIBUSTERS. I have also more than adequately explained my position, the position of others is very clear. You're simply repeating the same position ad nauseum and it is unhelpful in defining a consensus position. I simply refer you to my previous comment as nothing has in fact changed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you are not interested in this discussion anymore. Very well, I'll continue with the editors who do want to contribute to the article. I'll just leave you with one question (out of many) you have not answered and I'd like to know your answer.

1. Does the call for using only neutral 3rd party sources and not secondary news sources apply also to articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? If so, what would this decision imply for that article in particular? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't suggested not using reliable news sources, I have suggested using reliable work(s) which are only about the topic as guides on the space given and style used. While an exemplar source has been suggested, I don't have access to it. Who does? (Hohum ^@) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record Hohum ^@ I was referring to Wee suggesting not using news sources, not you. The source Wee refers to (Gustafson) is from 1988 and he only presents it as a way of saying "this source makes almost no mention of the international position so neither should we". I agree that reliable 3rd party sources are ideal, but in this case what we have are reliable secondary sources (news articles mainly) and I see nothing wrong with the use of such.

Let me repeat my question to Wee so it doesn't get lost:

1. Does the call for using only neutral 3rd party sources and not secondary news sources apply also to articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? If so, what would this decision imply for that article in particular?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have Gustafson, and it is available online, though I forget where (sorry). Gaba p, no I just don't intend to repeat myself, when you do so. I have already addressed the point, I would advocate using neutral 3rd party sources for the British position too and positions on the sovereignty referendum. Klaus Dodds for example, has commented on it. This does not mean other sources can't be used for some details. Now having made the point, I trust you won't be frivolously claiming I haven't answered (I have already but never mind), nor will you be using my comments out of context. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba (or anyone), do you have other reliable sources about sovereignty disputes which can guide us about the amount of space, and treatment of the opinions of external bodies? If not, WCMs is the best we have to use as a model. (Hohum ^@) 19:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no book about sovereignty disputes and its relation with the international position, although several exist (example here). It's quite hard to find mentions of international positions regarding this particular issue on books because the siding of several countries with one party or another is a somewhat recent event (like the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 of which you'll be pressed to find mentions of in books). Note that Gustafson's book is 25 years old and thus will hardly represent the current state of the international community on the issue.

In this case I subscribe to the use of secondary sources mentioning statements on position by any country that wishes to do so. That's why I say we should only mention what we can reliably source. If a group of countries expresses their support for A or B, we mention and source it. If a country/group of countries have an ambiguous position, we mention it and we source it. If a country has stated that it remains neutral, the same. If there is no source for a country's position, we can say nothing about it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So, you are arguing weight and due coverage (WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE) based on no source whatsoever, and you're suggesting that we don't base this on neutral 3rd party sources because the position of individual countries is a "recent event". What you in fact suggesting is that we independently research and identify the position of individual countries, which is to my mind the classic definition of ORIGINAL RESEARCH is it not? If it is in fact a "recent event", which by the way I do not accept, we should not be reporting it per WP:NOTNEWS until such time we can establish a definite change in policy. However, I am not aware of any significant change in position in the last 15 years.

At this point, I am arguing for deletion on the grounds that neutral 3rd party sources that examine the sovereignty dispute place little weight upon the "International position". Gaba p produces we conduct original research to compose a picture, which is clearly unacceptable on policy grounds. I have to note that the weight of argument is in my favour. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No Wee, I propose we use reliable secondary sources and mention what we can source through them. I also propose we use neutral 3rd party sources like Gustafson, which is a good source for the fact that France was supportive of the UK during the war. As we can come up with more 3rd party sources they should be added to the section, WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. There is no original research involved in simply presenting the position of countries as stated by them (be it in a summit or somewhere else) and as reported by reliable secondary sources. It would be OR if we were coming up with our own conclusions about the position of a country based on its "narrow national self-interest not the merit of either countries position" (Wee dixit).

There is absolutely no WP:WEIGHT or WP:DUE issue here because we are not deciding which positions to add and which ones to obscure, we present everything we can source. There would be a WP:WEIGHT or WP:DUE issue if we started deciding by our own criteria which countries matter and which do not (something you and Kahastok apparently propose).

You propose to completely remove valid and properly sourced information from Wikipeda (since you are also opposed to this being moved to its own article) based on low availability (at present) of "neutral 3rd party sources", ie: published books. Please go take a look at the main article Falklands Islands and tell me how many of its sections would have to be removed because they do not comply with this "quality standard". Should we move over there and start proposing that sections be entirely deleted from Wikipedia too?

So no, I have to note that the weight of argument is not in your favor. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"... we present everything we can source." No. We don't. That's simply not how Wikipedia works. Apcbg (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In this specific case it is until we can bring out more 3rd party sources to add to the section. As I said: WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.

Once again: if you want to restrict articles only to what books say about a given issue then head on over to Falklands Islands and start nominating sections for deletion. It is not always possible to have books to source and so we depend on reliable secondary sources to source the information. In that respect, deciding for ourselves which countries matter and which do not is a severe breach of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYN and pretty much every guideline you can imagine.

Proposing to completely remove all of this properly sourced relevant information from Wikipedia just because you think a country's position matters more (or less) than others is not sensible. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken your approach is to collate what you consider are reliable secondary sources, primarily press releases from International summits, conclude that where a resolution is passed in Argentina's favour you can infer that every country that attended supports the Argentine position. Any source that refers to a country supporting the British position is qualified up to and including the year of publication of the reference. So on the basis of your this research you conclude whether a country has a position in favour of Argentina but derogate any source on the British position on the basis of criteria you've arbitrarily defined.

As Martin Hogbin noted "just because we do have a reliable source does not mean that we must add a country if doing so would present an unbalanced global view". What is required to present a balanced global view is an independent piece of research (ideally multiple examples) that has examined the position of countries and made conclusions about the position of individual countries. This will enable us to assess the WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE coverage to apply in this section. That, as you acknowledge, few such sources exist and further that the coverage is minimal, does indicate that the WP:WEIGHT we should apply is minimal or zero. I believe this is a logical coherent argument, your counter argument that its bad to delete content that doesn't present a balanced global view I don't see as either logical or coherent. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are very much mistaken. Secondary sources are news articles about those summits (be it South American summits or European summits) and primary sources are the declarations themselves. A given country signs a declaration that states its full support for a given position and you say that this does not imply full support for that position? You realize how little sense you are making right? In any case we have quite a number of secondary sources to source the outcome of those summits, the declarations themselves can be added simply for informative reasons.

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

As you like to quote essays, WP:INDISCRIMINATE ie Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, precisely what you propose; indiscriminately collecting information but qualifying some sources on the basis of their year of publication. Please indicate which policy allows you to add such a qualification?

And as I see see it, you do not propose to add those countries that have voiced their opinion, you propose to reference summits and infer their opinion. Equally unless a country regularly makes a statement, even on those occasions where we can source an opinion, you wish to qualify it as being valid only up to the year of publication of the source. The net effect is to emphasise the Argentine position, as Argentina demands a statement of support at every summit it attends but, as I note, to derogate the British position, since Britain simply does not. Setting aside the basic flaw in your argument, that from original research you can synthesise a position, your proposal is counter to presenting a balanced global view. Wikipedia's policies preclude the approach you are adamant we must follow.

What you refuse to acknowledge is the issue of WP:WEIGHT, noting that, as you yourself acknowldge, neutral 3rd party sources considering the sovereignty dispute attach little if any weight to it. You simply repeat the same point, if it can be sourced, it must be included. This is filibustering again. In addition, you have acknowledged you have no source to support WP:WEIGHT. I am of the opinion the discussion as effectively come to an end. A policy based argument justifies its removal, a reference to an esaay (WP:WORKINPROGRESS) combined with a flawed methodology does not.

There is zero weight attached to the subject in the literature, the article should attach zero weight to it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me just quickly point a couple of statements made by you in the above comment that are simply not true:

• I do not intend on qualifying sources by their year of publication. This untrue comment refers obviously to France's position referenced as still supporting the British claim with a 25 years old book. This is not arguable, the statement is not supported by the source. Note however that my proposal is not to remove it but to re-phrase the mention to be in line with the source. Your adamant opposition to this is mesmerizing.
• "you propose to reference summits and infer their opinion", again untrue. As I stated above, I propose to use reliable secondary sources to source these statements. Go read my comment again please.
• If a country does not voice its support for a position then we can not source it and therefore we can not add it. The decision by the UK not to call for support from other countries (as Argentina has) has a direct implication: there is no support to add. This is not a synthesis from my part, this is simply the state of the international community. There is no WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE or WP:NPOV issue here since the current state of secondary sources in existence 100% back the fact that a bigger pro-Argentina position is being voiced. Wanting to obscure the whole section from WP simply because you can't add statements regarding a pro-British position by any country, is however a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

I agree that the discussion has apparently come to a stall but I'd advise you check the comments again. Of all the editors commenting only you, Kahastok and Apcbg have stated any reason for the removal of the section. The rest (myself, Langus, Shrigley, Bevo74, Peter James, Martin Hogbin and Antidiskriminator) have stated otherwise. I'm waiting to see Hohum's final position after our discussion. I note that one editor even commented about your behaviour in this RfC in the following way: "I am afraid that your editing is disruptive and aimed to circumvent the normal process of consensus".

You do not have consensus by any measure of the word to remove the section so I'll ask you to please abstain from doing so.

Once again: by your criteria of "no weight in literature" then we should move on to Falklands Islands and remove quite a number of sections. Is this what you propose? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The position advocated is to base weight on the weight attached to the subject in reliable sources. In that respect, ignoring the fixed position you and Langus always adopt, there is a consensus on the process for composing an edit based on the weight attached to the subject in reliable third party sources. In fact, there is no difference of opinion, it is simply the case that, as i've pointed out, such sources attach little if any weight to it.

This does not mean that reliable sources can be used to synthesise a position that there is greater support for Argentina as you now acknowledge is your intention. Your stated intention is to clearly violate WP:NPOV, in that respect you are stating an intention to be disruptive; WP:NPOV is not negotiable. Equally the inherent threat to disrupt Falkland Islands based on a strawman extrapolation is inherently disruptive.

Your claim that I have no provided a reason for removal is patently false. Such a denial is a classic example of further disruptive editing by filibustering. It seems fairly clear to me that there is a consensus position, its a position solidly based in policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Since your last comments are nothing but personal attacks and repeating the same "I am right and you're wrong" statement, I'll simply stop responding until another editor makes a comment. I've told you I intend to "synthesize" nothing and that your position of obscuring relevant and properly sourced material is a clear breach of WP:NPOV. There is also no "strawman extrapolation" and neither is it a threat of any kind, I'm simply pointing out how your position is full of holes as clearly demonstrated by attempting to apply it to the Falklands Islands article (and virtually any article).

I've told you already you have absolutely no consensus for the removal of the section and I expect you will respect that. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

With a bit of luck we may have a current position of France on the issue available if it chooses to respond to this France should back Britain in event of Falklands fight. Could even put to rest the discussion on whether that country still supports or not the UK position. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is disappointing that you present the stated positions of other editors here so inaccurately. I note that the comments of several of those editors you list, the poll above and the comments in the previous section (which certainly count toward consensus) give a startlingly different conception of the consensus from that which you present.

It is also disappointing that you choose to insist that we must not follow WP:WEIGHT, which as part of WP:NPOV is pretty much fundamental policy. The rule that we follow the weight given to the points in reliable secondary sources about the subject at hand is not some novel invention. It's a basic standard on Wikipedia.

By your everything-we-can-source rule this article could contain anything about anything at all - be it fringe, misleading, irrelevant, off topic - it doesn't matter. Would your article on Earth go on and on about the flat Earth theory? On the basis of "we present everything we can source", the only possible answer is yes. Would we put it also on the article United States? If we are to "present everything we can source", clearly, yes. Would we put it on this article? If "we present everything we can source", we have no choice: yes. It should come as no surprise that this would be unworkable. And it should come as no surprise that it is not and never has been accepted by policy.

The fact that you suggest that there is "no support" for Britain internationally demonstrates nothing but that you haven't looked. It's pretty trivial to find evidence of countries supporting Britain. I even cited such evidence earlier (and no, before you argue the toss, the fact that you ignored it does not mean that I didn't cite it). You seem to have an idea that you only need to do the Argentine side and others can do the British side. No. It is your job as an editor to make your edits and proposals neutral and the evidence would suggest that you haven't even tried. Kahastok talk 23:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: I'm going to have to ask you to please clarify you accusations that I "present the stated positions of other editors here so inaccurately". Here are the editors I said had stated otherwise (as not supported the removal) in the comments section:

• Shrigley: no vote, his comment made it crystal clear that he opposed.
• Bevo74: supported the deletion in the votes but in his final comment so far he stated: "I don't think any one of the above is enough to remove the section on its' own, but enough weaknesses are there to mean it will forever be a POV battleground." Need I make it clearer?
• Peter James: no vote, stated: "International responses and actions are relevant, but could probably be presented,chronologically and restricted to the more significant ones". Definitely did not support deleting the section.
• Martin Hogbin: opposed removal.
• Antidiskriminator: opposed removal (and questioned Wee's behaviour).

Oh and I see now that I forgot about Richard Keatinge who voted "Reduce to one sentence with multiple refs.", clearly no support for the removal.

Remember at the last ANI what was discussed about making untrue statements? You might want to be a little more careful next time.

"The rule that we follow the weight given to the points in reliable secondary sources about the subject at hand is not some novel invention. It's a basic standard on Wikipedia.", thank you my friend. That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. Let's base on reliable secondary sources (like the ones used right now) and add reliable 3rd party sources (ie: published books) as they come along. Glad to see we agree on this.

"It's pretty trivial to find evidence of countries supporting Britain", it is? Then why haven't you added any to the section? The only mention you made was of some Caribbean countries backing the UK at a recent summit but did not add it, why is that? Are you expecting me to do it? Why is that?

"You seem to have an idea that you only need to do the Argentine side and others can do the British side", no I do not. As I have said previously, we definitely should mention the ambivalent position of those Caribbean countries you mentioned. I have not come across any other position regarding support for the UK, am I in breach of some WP guideline here for not finding sources? If you say sources are so easy to find, why haven't you presented them? Why haven't you added them to the section? I really don't see the logic in your reasoning here. You act as if I were to oppose the addition of sources stating support for the British claim by a given country when nothing could be further away from the truth.

"By your everything-we-can-source rule this article could contain anything about anything at all - be it fringe, misleading, irrelevant, off topic - it doesn't matter", now this is a gross strawman. If you object to the addition of a given country (or group of countries) in the section on account of WP:FRINGE or WP:OFFTOPIC then please speak up. The positions currently present are all of them 100% properly sourced by reliable secondary sources. Again your position makes little sense.

I'm not following your position Kahastok: on the one hand you want to completely remove this information from this article as irrelevant and on the other hand you accuse me of violating WP:NPOV because I haven't added to the article sources presenting countries backing the UK claim (which I have not found and I'd welcome if you have them). Make up your mind: should we delete this section or should I continue to expand it?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to be a genius or an experienced WP editor to see there's no consensus here. I wish I could say I'm perplexed at the fact that people have completely different versions of reality, but sadly that's not the case at the Falklands-related articles.

Wee (and I think that Kahastok too) said: "Argentina demands a statement of support at every summit it attends but, as I note, to derogate the British position, since Britain simply does not." If we can source this, maybe we could include it in the article, in lieu of WP:NPOV. Although not in those exact words, of course, as they clearly fail that very same policy.

And no, it is not my job to source this, as Kahastok seems to imply above. --Langus (t) 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote "it is not my job to source this", actually it is, after 2 years of editing wikipedia you still fail to realise you are required to produce NPOV content. You can't write POV content and expect others to add POV content to balance it out. I'm perplexed that after numerous attempts by myself and others to explain a basic policy, you still don't get it. As far as I can see from day 1 you have seen your role to be to ensure the Argentine POV is represented, utterly failing to comprehend it isn't. Your role is simply to describe how neutral sources see the Argentine and British positions. If you have a different perspective of reality, that simply reflects the fact you just don't get it, nothing more.

Equally you still don't get that consensus is about strength of argument and if one set of editors is arguing solidly from the basis of policy and another is suggesting a route that is fundamentally at odds with policy, then consensus is with the former not the latter. Nor does consensus require us to attain your assent for a change, that is simply a recipe for disruptive editors to stall content improvement as we see here. At this point I would be perfectly within my rights to proceed with the proposed change, since there is the basis for a consensus approach. You can't stall for ever, arguing that we must include every scrap of indiscriminate information as you insist. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Quote "it is not my job to source this", actually it is", actually it is not. It is OUR job to add content to the encyclopedia. This is a collaborative project in case you weren't aware. If you believe something is missing from the article then go ahead and fix it. Don't expect other editors to do it for you and then accuse them of POV if they don't.

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

Just a brief background. I am a Brit, and was 19 when the war was in progress, At the time I was highly pro-Argentine, but the passage of years has given me a more neutral viewpoint. In no way am I particularly engaged with the subject, as other subjects of controversy on Wiki tend to engage me more. However I must say that I agree with the removal of this section.

Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013

This should probably be mentioned, or at least linked, somewhere in the article. Peter James (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to add a content suggestion, I have thought the same myself but have avoided doing so for my own reasons. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It was rejected when first news appeared in the papers because there were no details about it. I think we have more info now and it can be mentioned. In a neutral way, of course. --Langus (t) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

I removed two sources that did not verify Chinese support for Argentine sovereignty. The first simply reported on what the Argentine president said, not what the Chinese government did. The second was from "Finance Online", which is not a reliable source. Two new references put in by another editor are acceptable. On a matter like this, sourcing must be impeccable. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)