![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
The BBC reports that Argentina declined the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Falkland Islands, saying "[t]he international community does not recognise a third party in this dispute." This would seem to be a significant and worth coverage in the article. The UK responded in a manner that seems to put the brakes on any talks. Perhaps less significant is a claim to the islands by Uraguay. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
On the "rejected talks": are you aware that the issue of sovereignty was off the table? "The representatives made it clear that they would be making some forceful remarks and that if the issue of sovereignty came up, it would not be discussed." [2] Looks like a media stunt really. -- Langus ( t) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | Other scholars agree that this congress and the treaty that resulted from it represented an important milestone in the development of uti possidetis. Alvarez (1909: 290), for example, notes that the uti possidetis of 1810 "was, moreover, recognized in fact by all the states, and proclaimed in the Congress of Lima in 1848." Similarly, Ireland (1938: 327) writes that the doctrine "came gradually to be accepted as a general guiding principle, in South America known as the doctrine of the Uti Possidetis of 1810, and proclaimed in the Congress of Lima un 1848." Bächler (1976: 261) argues that at the start of independence from Spanish rule, border problems between the new states were practically nonexistent; it was only later, when national consolidation and the discovery of new resources necessitated the precise demarcation of border lines, that uti possidetis was applied in earnest. Edwards (1925: 290) similarly suggests that the intraregional dimension of uti possidetis was recognized as important during the Congress of Lima: "Already frontier questions were beginning to appear and, in order to prevent the conflicts to which they might give rise, it was decided that, in the absence of special stipulations, the boundaries of the various States should be those existing at the time of their emancipation from the Spanish rule." | ” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at several regional summits. China has also stated its support for Argentina's sovereignty claim. Since 1964 with the presentation of the Ruda statement, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute. The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" the last one in 1988, where it asked to initiate negotiations to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries. The UK refuses to negotiate the sovereignty of the islands until that is the wish of the Islanders themselves. The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. |
” |
Noting Wee refused to address the points made about his version, here they go again asking him to please comment on the issues if you intent on moving this short version forward.
@Martin: the version has been terribly reduced and only a handful of countries are being mentioned. What exactly are your concerns with my version proposed below? I'll be happy to address any issues you might have with it if you let me know.
I see that the mention of the C24 is still being challenged so I changed it and reduced it (again). Here it goes:
“ | International and regional views
Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support, [1] reflecting the mandate enshrined in its 1994 constitution [2] resulting in most Latin American countries repeatedly expressing support for the Argentine position [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and endorsing proposals to restart negotiations at regional summits [10] [11] [12] [13] and through the Decolonization Committee of the UN where several resolutions calling the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina have been issued. [14] Spanish support is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol. [15] [16] The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. citation needed The US and EU [17] [18] [19] have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. [20] |
” |
Let me note that the current section proposed is 17 times shorter than the previous one (yes, I did the math) Considering that there was never a consensus to remove the old version (which should be up right now) I'd say that we are making a big compromise here.
Once again: Wee & Kahastok please be precise on your answers and/or issues with this version, as I am being with the version Wee proposes. Vague statements really lead nowhere. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | International and regional views
Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support. In response, many Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for a resumption of negotiations. Argentina has lobbied the issue at the UN Decolonization Committee since the 1960s and though it issues an annual statement on the issue calling for negotiations, the UN General Assembly has not passed any resolution on the matter since 1988. Spanish support is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol. The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. |
” |
@Kahastok: that source is but one source. Just because you want it to be the only one (and why would you want that is beyond me) and you could have agreed as much with Wee, that does not make it a mandate. Let me point you to the UK Parliament's own article about the issue Argentina and the Falklands, where the regional summits and the support of Latin America are stated as follows:
If you want to argue against this source, please be my guest. I'll await your comments.
@Wee: I think we might be reaching a compromise here. The constitution mention was actually added by you, I compromised accepting it if I recall correctly. I'd have no issues not mentioning it. The sources are there so we can pick a few before the final version is moved to the article, I've mentioned this about 5 times now. Here's the proposed version with some minor changes, mainly I changed "many" to "most" in regard to Latin American countries support as per UK Parliament's source. This source would actually point to a much larger mention of summits, but let's just leave it at that. Aside from that I merely re-arranged one or two sentences.
“ | International and regional views
Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support. [21] In response, most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and endorsed Argentine proposals to restart negotiations at several regional summits. [29] [11] [30] [31] Since 1964, with the presentation of the Ruda Report, [32] Argentina lobbies its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN. [33] Numerous recommendations calling on the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina have been presented to the UN General Assembly by this committee. [14] The General Assembly passed several resolutions since 1965 on the "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" [34] the last one in 1988, asking both countries to initiate negotiations. [35] [36] Spanish support for the Argentinian position is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol. [37] [38] The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. citation needed The US and EU [39] [40] [19] have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. [41] |
” |
Do we have an agreement? Should we select which sources make the final cut and edit the version into the article? Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 20:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
One wonders why the proposed ‘International dimension’ section drafts fail to account for that dimension at the early stage of the sovereignty dispute. Notably, the US position at that decisive time was not neutral. The USA strongly rejected the Argentine sovereignty pretensions and was prepared to support its position by military force. That US position and action played a key role in setting the basics of the sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina ever since. Apcbg ( talk) 16:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
To re-iterate, there was agreement amongst everybody to use that source for weight. Kahastok makes a not unreasonable point that the support Gaba refers to amongst Latin America, as the source notes, is little more than lip service. Again the point has also been made by more than one editor, that consensus becomes less likely when you Gaba go back on your word. As far as I and others are concerned the clock stopped when you decided to take the weekend off.
Btw a source has been provided stating Argentina has lobbied since the 1960s, the source being the Argentine Government document referred to above. I chose that specifically because you couldn't reject it as a "British POV". What is really sad is seeing a return to the same behaviour, pretending no source provided when one has, going back on your word and a none too subtle threat to revert war if you don't get your own way. The only thing preventing a consensus emerging is your behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
@Irondome: I changed your edits to accommodate Wee's request in line with the C24 own FAQ about its purpose
[11] and Scjessey's concern of the use of the word "resolutions" which I changed for "recommendations" again in line with the C24's own FAQ. I commend your calmed attitude, I think you are the only one keeping this from going really sour again.
@Wee and or Kahastok: please present the neutral edits you are proposing. There isn't a resort to threats, there's nothing wrong about restoring the old consensual version, which never should have been deleted, until the new one is finished. In any case I'll take Irondome's recommendation and hold off for now with the hopes of achieving a consensus soon.
About the "1960" statement, you mean the "Ruda report" mentioned in 2. Período 1945-1965? Ok, I've amended the proposed version to mention that. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here again on my talk page as it was feared that things may once again be getting out of control. Skim-reading the above I can see what may be causing this fear. It seems to me that we are very close to reaching a compromise that will have consensus support. It would seem a shame to not now get there given the effort that has gone into this. With this in mind I offer a few observations which may help that goal be reached.
Firstly threats to restore the previous section are unhelpful. I can understand the frustration that led to this but I strongly suspect that any such action will lead to reverting, edit wars, page protection and possibly blocks. This will in no way help the long term solution. With that in mind I urge patience and also suggest that some minimalistic version is agreed upon as soon as possible - it can always be added to as consensus is reached on the more contentious sections.
Secondly, I notice the reappearance of a couple of editors that were not so active when the discussions about the way forward etc were happening although they had previously been active in these discussion. I urge them to read some of the way forward discussions if they have not already and try to moderate their comments somewhat. It appears to me that is these editors reappearing that seem to have headed this discussion back towards a battleground and I hope this wasn't their intention, that they realise that this is, unintentionally, what they've caused and that they try to stop it getting any worse.
Thirdly, I notice that as things have deteriorated in the content discussion editors language towards each other has worsened. While this is very understandable it's not helping the situation. Please try to remember the final goal here no matter how frustrated you get.
Fourthly, consensus is not the same as universal agreement. Obviously everyone agreeing is the idea solution but I think that there are now enough editors here that a reasonable consensus could be formed without everyone agreeing. As such if there is a sticking point where one editor is being very firm but all other editors have agreed on a version then it may be best to simply accept that getting a universal agreement isn't going to happen but that there is still a consensus.
Finally please remember that whatever consensus version is inserted into the article it need not, and indeed should not, be the final version. It can still be changed, with consensus, especially if new sources are found, the situation changes or there is some other good reason. Dpmuk ( talk) 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see the versions that people are proposing here. It's no good working on two independent versions in the same place, and I find the current practice of replacing the one with the other with each passing edit unhelpful and confusing. Could you both put your current wordings next to each other, please? And then could we all agree not to edit one another's texts, please? If anyone has a specific proposal to make on any particular text, they should either make their own section with a new text (and let's say one proposal per person as a rule) or quote a sentence and a new wording, without changing the text of the proposal they wish to change.
The current version under #Proposed version seems to be going backward. It's growing from the last time I saw it and I don't believe it should be based on the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. The list of countries that I thought we'd agreed to drop has been reintroduced. The list of regional summits that was gone has been reintroduced. The WP:WEIGHT in the sources simply doesn't support this. Kahastok talk 19:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
OK I've cut it down to what is actually agreed at this point. I still think Kahastok makes a not unreasonable point that needs to be addressed. Lets actually address that instead of moving backwards and modifying what is agreed. The text should be neutral and reflect what the source we agreed to use to address weight. This does not mean we revert to the same tactic of inserting a load of extraneous quotes as "balance". Wee Curry Monster talk 08:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | Despite British opposition, Argentina was able to participate in the debate of Subcommittee III of the Special Committee. In September 1964, the Argentine Delegate, José María Ruda, presented a Statement setting out the historical and legal foundations of the Argentine sovereignty claim.
The “Ruda Statement” became a milestone in the development of the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands, as it was the first structured presentation of the matter to the United Nations, which took note of its existence and recommended that the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom initiate bilateral negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful solution. |
” |
“ | ...[we] invite the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee with a view to find a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). | ” |
The reason why we don't generally do votes is that there are generally many possible options. A rewording, or change in emphasis, selective removal or rebalancing per WP:WEIGHT generally falls in the middle of a black-and-white vote.
I regard the text under "Proposed version" not as "the most consensual version" but as Gaba's own current personal preferred version. How different it is from Curry Monster's preferred version, I have no idea. What other objections have been raised, I have no idea. What the points currently in contention or under discussion are, similarly I have no idea. I have no idea because when I asked that we work to a system that would allow us to answer these questions at a glance, you refused.
I have objections to the current version under "proposed version". I see lots fluff in there that I do not believe is justified per WP:WEIGHT. But right now you're insisting we run blind, which is ridiculous. I oppose any move to a vote, or choice between specific points, while those who are choosing are not allowed to see all of the proposed alternatives. Kahastok talk 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I just want to quote a few comments from WP:FILIBUSTERS, yes I know some will comment that its inappropriate to comment on editor behaviour but bear with me.
“ | Once they are reverted, they will write a 10-page essay on the talkpage. A person will respond to them with a few sentences and they will reply, "But you didn't respond to my points!" You ask what points they want you to respond to and they say, "All of them!" So, you go through with the tedious task of responding to every single trivial point they make and click save page.
Five minutes later, you look at the talkpage to see another 10-page essay. Again, the cycle continues. You respond in a few sentences and perhaps the person themselves even responds in a few sentences, but the conversation goes on and on and on, in such a way that it's clear that it's more of an intellectual game, like a staring contest, to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion. So, you revert the person, and they revert you too, with edit summaries containing, "There's no consensus! Stop edit-warring, I declare! See the talkpage!" |
” |
Just in the last couple of hours, consider some of the behaviour here [12] and again [13], I ask what is the point in addressing any comment, when the same point is repeated again and again. There is a complaint above on user behaviour, accusing others of refusing to move. If you'd been able to see the text as its evolved, it would become quite apparent that indeed those people have moved, they've compromised, they've attempted to find a common ground. The only reason consensus has proved elusive is one editor has not.
I next want to draw attention to a couple of news reports that have been a hot topic for the last couple of days. When I say hot, front page news in Argentina, about the 5/6 th in the uk and barely worth a mention anywhere else.
First of all a report on statements issued by Hector Timmerman, [14]. He stated:
“ | There is not one single country in the world which supports the right of the United Kingdom to govern over the Malvinas. Not one. | ” |
Well not exactly true but if you look at the edits one editor has been espousing for some time, you can discern a particular agenda to impose precisely this sentiment in this article. What I found interesting was an editorial in LA NACION [15], an Argentine newspaper. Translating the relevant paragraph:
“ | Sin embargo, hasta ahora el Gobierno, más allá de las palabras, no ha conseguido ampliar la masa de apoyo diplomático a la causa Malvinas, excepto en América latina y en algunos países emergentes. Estados Unidos mantiene su declamada "neutralidad" (acompañada de un tácito apoyo a la posición británica) a la hora de discutir sobre las islas. Europa jamás cuestionó (y hasta avaló en la legislación comunitaria) la soberanía británica sobre el archipiélago.
El reciente giro de la diplomacia argentina en el caso por el atentado contra la AMIA, que posibilitó un acuerdo con el gobierno de Irán -un régimen sancionado por los principales países desarrollados- difícilmente ayudará a ganar amigos en el diferendo por Malvinas. |
” |
“ | But so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’, has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause, maybe except in Latinamerica and some emerging countries. The US remains “neutral” (but with a tacit support of Britain’s position) and Europe never questioned (and even supported with EC legislation and aid) UK sovereignty over the Islands.
Furthermore the recent turn in Argentine diplomacy reaching an understanding with Iran on the investigation into a 1994 attack of a Jewish organization in Buenos Aires comes as a surprise: it is a regime sanctioned by the main developed countries, and this can hardly help to make friends on the Malvinas issue. |
” |
Now dragging myself to the point. Gaba p would like to see the article presenting the official position expressed by Timmerman. The article needs the neutral POV expressed in La Nacion.
I would hope this achieves its intended purpose of letting Gaba P understand that he needs to put his POV to one side if he wishes to edit wikipedia.
So addressing the same points again:
“ | On 2 December 1980 the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Nicholas Ridley, stated in the House of Commons: "We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands... we have a perfectly valid title".[67] The British government regards the right of the islanders to self-determination as "paramount"[67][68] and rejects the idea of negotiations over sovereignty without the islanders' consent. | ” |
There is no need to mention it again. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | While two reliable sources are certainly desirable, I think one is sufficient; newspaper accounts are acceptable-quality sources. All the best, Mini apolis | ” |
Wee Curry Monster translated: "But so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’..." from here.
This is incorrect. The correct idea is "But so far Argentina, [in real terms | in practice | despite Timerman's statement], has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause, <no maybe whatsoever here> except in Latinamerica and some emerging countries.
Lip service means 'giving approval or support insincerely'. This is not implied by the editorial article, on the contrary: the diplomatic support in Latin America is explicitly given as a point in favor of Timerman.
I agree with Kahastok that this way of working is getting impossible to follow... -- Langus ( t) 01:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
As to the rest, I refer you to my previous answer, argumentatively repeating the same points ad nauseum is not discussing. Take it to WP:DRN if you insist but honestly and frankly you're wasting people's time over trivia. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
A high-quality secondary source that can be usefully mined (apologies if previously used) - Hoare, Liam; Jan 11, 2013 Falklands Redux: Is President Kirchner South America's Biggest Troll?, The Atlantic. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Likewise The Guardian's resource, created on 3 January 2013 and updated: The Falkland Islands: everything you ever wanted to know in data and charts -- Wikiain ( talk) 02:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
The BBC reports that Argentina declined the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Falkland Islands, saying "[t]he international community does not recognise a third party in this dispute." This would seem to be a significant and worth coverage in the article. The UK responded in a manner that seems to put the brakes on any talks. Perhaps less significant is a claim to the islands by Uraguay. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
On the "rejected talks": are you aware that the issue of sovereignty was off the table? "The representatives made it clear that they would be making some forceful remarks and that if the issue of sovereignty came up, it would not be discussed." [2] Looks like a media stunt really. -- Langus ( t) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | Other scholars agree that this congress and the treaty that resulted from it represented an important milestone in the development of uti possidetis. Alvarez (1909: 290), for example, notes that the uti possidetis of 1810 "was, moreover, recognized in fact by all the states, and proclaimed in the Congress of Lima in 1848." Similarly, Ireland (1938: 327) writes that the doctrine "came gradually to be accepted as a general guiding principle, in South America known as the doctrine of the Uti Possidetis of 1810, and proclaimed in the Congress of Lima un 1848." Bächler (1976: 261) argues that at the start of independence from Spanish rule, border problems between the new states were practically nonexistent; it was only later, when national consolidation and the discovery of new resources necessitated the precise demarcation of border lines, that uti possidetis was applied in earnest. Edwards (1925: 290) similarly suggests that the intraregional dimension of uti possidetis was recognized as important during the Congress of Lima: "Already frontier questions were beginning to appear and, in order to prevent the conflicts to which they might give rise, it was decided that, in the absence of special stipulations, the boundaries of the various States should be those existing at the time of their emancipation from the Spanish rule." | ” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at several regional summits. China has also stated its support for Argentina's sovereignty claim. Since 1964 with the presentation of the Ruda statement, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute. The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" the last one in 1988, where it asked to initiate negotiations to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries. The UK refuses to negotiate the sovereignty of the islands until that is the wish of the Islanders themselves. The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. |
” |
Noting Wee refused to address the points made about his version, here they go again asking him to please comment on the issues if you intent on moving this short version forward.
@Martin: the version has been terribly reduced and only a handful of countries are being mentioned. What exactly are your concerns with my version proposed below? I'll be happy to address any issues you might have with it if you let me know.
I see that the mention of the C24 is still being challenged so I changed it and reduced it (again). Here it goes:
“ | International and regional views
Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support, [1] reflecting the mandate enshrined in its 1994 constitution [2] resulting in most Latin American countries repeatedly expressing support for the Argentine position [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and endorsing proposals to restart negotiations at regional summits [10] [11] [12] [13] and through the Decolonization Committee of the UN where several resolutions calling the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina have been issued. [14] Spanish support is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol. [15] [16] The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. citation needed The US and EU [17] [18] [19] have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. [20] |
” |
Let me note that the current section proposed is 17 times shorter than the previous one (yes, I did the math) Considering that there was never a consensus to remove the old version (which should be up right now) I'd say that we are making a big compromise here.
Once again: Wee & Kahastok please be precise on your answers and/or issues with this version, as I am being with the version Wee proposes. Vague statements really lead nowhere. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | International and regional views
Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support. In response, many Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for a resumption of negotiations. Argentina has lobbied the issue at the UN Decolonization Committee since the 1960s and though it issues an annual statement on the issue calling for negotiations, the UN General Assembly has not passed any resolution on the matter since 1988. Spanish support is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol. The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. |
” |
@Kahastok: that source is but one source. Just because you want it to be the only one (and why would you want that is beyond me) and you could have agreed as much with Wee, that does not make it a mandate. Let me point you to the UK Parliament's own article about the issue Argentina and the Falklands, where the regional summits and the support of Latin America are stated as follows:
If you want to argue against this source, please be my guest. I'll await your comments.
@Wee: I think we might be reaching a compromise here. The constitution mention was actually added by you, I compromised accepting it if I recall correctly. I'd have no issues not mentioning it. The sources are there so we can pick a few before the final version is moved to the article, I've mentioned this about 5 times now. Here's the proposed version with some minor changes, mainly I changed "many" to "most" in regard to Latin American countries support as per UK Parliament's source. This source would actually point to a much larger mention of summits, but let's just leave it at that. Aside from that I merely re-arranged one or two sentences.
“ | International and regional views
Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support. [21] In response, most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and endorsed Argentine proposals to restart negotiations at several regional summits. [29] [11] [30] [31] Since 1964, with the presentation of the Ruda Report, [32] Argentina lobbies its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN. [33] Numerous recommendations calling on the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina have been presented to the UN General Assembly by this committee. [14] The General Assembly passed several resolutions since 1965 on the "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" [34] the last one in 1988, asking both countries to initiate negotiations. [35] [36] Spanish support for the Argentinian position is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol. [37] [38] The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. citation needed The US and EU [39] [40] [19] have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. [41] |
” |
Do we have an agreement? Should we select which sources make the final cut and edit the version into the article? Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 20:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
One wonders why the proposed ‘International dimension’ section drafts fail to account for that dimension at the early stage of the sovereignty dispute. Notably, the US position at that decisive time was not neutral. The USA strongly rejected the Argentine sovereignty pretensions and was prepared to support its position by military force. That US position and action played a key role in setting the basics of the sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina ever since. Apcbg ( talk) 16:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
To re-iterate, there was agreement amongst everybody to use that source for weight. Kahastok makes a not unreasonable point that the support Gaba refers to amongst Latin America, as the source notes, is little more than lip service. Again the point has also been made by more than one editor, that consensus becomes less likely when you Gaba go back on your word. As far as I and others are concerned the clock stopped when you decided to take the weekend off.
Btw a source has been provided stating Argentina has lobbied since the 1960s, the source being the Argentine Government document referred to above. I chose that specifically because you couldn't reject it as a "British POV". What is really sad is seeing a return to the same behaviour, pretending no source provided when one has, going back on your word and a none too subtle threat to revert war if you don't get your own way. The only thing preventing a consensus emerging is your behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
@Irondome: I changed your edits to accommodate Wee's request in line with the C24 own FAQ about its purpose
[11] and Scjessey's concern of the use of the word "resolutions" which I changed for "recommendations" again in line with the C24's own FAQ. I commend your calmed attitude, I think you are the only one keeping this from going really sour again.
@Wee and or Kahastok: please present the neutral edits you are proposing. There isn't a resort to threats, there's nothing wrong about restoring the old consensual version, which never should have been deleted, until the new one is finished. In any case I'll take Irondome's recommendation and hold off for now with the hopes of achieving a consensus soon.
About the "1960" statement, you mean the "Ruda report" mentioned in 2. Período 1945-1965? Ok, I've amended the proposed version to mention that. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here again on my talk page as it was feared that things may once again be getting out of control. Skim-reading the above I can see what may be causing this fear. It seems to me that we are very close to reaching a compromise that will have consensus support. It would seem a shame to not now get there given the effort that has gone into this. With this in mind I offer a few observations which may help that goal be reached.
Firstly threats to restore the previous section are unhelpful. I can understand the frustration that led to this but I strongly suspect that any such action will lead to reverting, edit wars, page protection and possibly blocks. This will in no way help the long term solution. With that in mind I urge patience and also suggest that some minimalistic version is agreed upon as soon as possible - it can always be added to as consensus is reached on the more contentious sections.
Secondly, I notice the reappearance of a couple of editors that were not so active when the discussions about the way forward etc were happening although they had previously been active in these discussion. I urge them to read some of the way forward discussions if they have not already and try to moderate their comments somewhat. It appears to me that is these editors reappearing that seem to have headed this discussion back towards a battleground and I hope this wasn't their intention, that they realise that this is, unintentionally, what they've caused and that they try to stop it getting any worse.
Thirdly, I notice that as things have deteriorated in the content discussion editors language towards each other has worsened. While this is very understandable it's not helping the situation. Please try to remember the final goal here no matter how frustrated you get.
Fourthly, consensus is not the same as universal agreement. Obviously everyone agreeing is the idea solution but I think that there are now enough editors here that a reasonable consensus could be formed without everyone agreeing. As such if there is a sticking point where one editor is being very firm but all other editors have agreed on a version then it may be best to simply accept that getting a universal agreement isn't going to happen but that there is still a consensus.
Finally please remember that whatever consensus version is inserted into the article it need not, and indeed should not, be the final version. It can still be changed, with consensus, especially if new sources are found, the situation changes or there is some other good reason. Dpmuk ( talk) 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see the versions that people are proposing here. It's no good working on two independent versions in the same place, and I find the current practice of replacing the one with the other with each passing edit unhelpful and confusing. Could you both put your current wordings next to each other, please? And then could we all agree not to edit one another's texts, please? If anyone has a specific proposal to make on any particular text, they should either make their own section with a new text (and let's say one proposal per person as a rule) or quote a sentence and a new wording, without changing the text of the proposal they wish to change.
The current version under #Proposed version seems to be going backward. It's growing from the last time I saw it and I don't believe it should be based on the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. The list of countries that I thought we'd agreed to drop has been reintroduced. The list of regional summits that was gone has been reintroduced. The WP:WEIGHT in the sources simply doesn't support this. Kahastok talk 19:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
OK I've cut it down to what is actually agreed at this point. I still think Kahastok makes a not unreasonable point that needs to be addressed. Lets actually address that instead of moving backwards and modifying what is agreed. The text should be neutral and reflect what the source we agreed to use to address weight. This does not mean we revert to the same tactic of inserting a load of extraneous quotes as "balance". Wee Curry Monster talk 08:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | Despite British opposition, Argentina was able to participate in the debate of Subcommittee III of the Special Committee. In September 1964, the Argentine Delegate, José María Ruda, presented a Statement setting out the historical and legal foundations of the Argentine sovereignty claim.
The “Ruda Statement” became a milestone in the development of the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands, as it was the first structured presentation of the matter to the United Nations, which took note of its existence and recommended that the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom initiate bilateral negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful solution. |
” |
“ | ...[we] invite the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee with a view to find a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). | ” |
The reason why we don't generally do votes is that there are generally many possible options. A rewording, or change in emphasis, selective removal or rebalancing per WP:WEIGHT generally falls in the middle of a black-and-white vote.
I regard the text under "Proposed version" not as "the most consensual version" but as Gaba's own current personal preferred version. How different it is from Curry Monster's preferred version, I have no idea. What other objections have been raised, I have no idea. What the points currently in contention or under discussion are, similarly I have no idea. I have no idea because when I asked that we work to a system that would allow us to answer these questions at a glance, you refused.
I have objections to the current version under "proposed version". I see lots fluff in there that I do not believe is justified per WP:WEIGHT. But right now you're insisting we run blind, which is ridiculous. I oppose any move to a vote, or choice between specific points, while those who are choosing are not allowed to see all of the proposed alternatives. Kahastok talk 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I just want to quote a few comments from WP:FILIBUSTERS, yes I know some will comment that its inappropriate to comment on editor behaviour but bear with me.
“ | Once they are reverted, they will write a 10-page essay on the talkpage. A person will respond to them with a few sentences and they will reply, "But you didn't respond to my points!" You ask what points they want you to respond to and they say, "All of them!" So, you go through with the tedious task of responding to every single trivial point they make and click save page.
Five minutes later, you look at the talkpage to see another 10-page essay. Again, the cycle continues. You respond in a few sentences and perhaps the person themselves even responds in a few sentences, but the conversation goes on and on and on, in such a way that it's clear that it's more of an intellectual game, like a staring contest, to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion. So, you revert the person, and they revert you too, with edit summaries containing, "There's no consensus! Stop edit-warring, I declare! See the talkpage!" |
” |
Just in the last couple of hours, consider some of the behaviour here [12] and again [13], I ask what is the point in addressing any comment, when the same point is repeated again and again. There is a complaint above on user behaviour, accusing others of refusing to move. If you'd been able to see the text as its evolved, it would become quite apparent that indeed those people have moved, they've compromised, they've attempted to find a common ground. The only reason consensus has proved elusive is one editor has not.
I next want to draw attention to a couple of news reports that have been a hot topic for the last couple of days. When I say hot, front page news in Argentina, about the 5/6 th in the uk and barely worth a mention anywhere else.
First of all a report on statements issued by Hector Timmerman, [14]. He stated:
“ | There is not one single country in the world which supports the right of the United Kingdom to govern over the Malvinas. Not one. | ” |
Well not exactly true but if you look at the edits one editor has been espousing for some time, you can discern a particular agenda to impose precisely this sentiment in this article. What I found interesting was an editorial in LA NACION [15], an Argentine newspaper. Translating the relevant paragraph:
“ | Sin embargo, hasta ahora el Gobierno, más allá de las palabras, no ha conseguido ampliar la masa de apoyo diplomático a la causa Malvinas, excepto en América latina y en algunos países emergentes. Estados Unidos mantiene su declamada "neutralidad" (acompañada de un tácito apoyo a la posición británica) a la hora de discutir sobre las islas. Europa jamás cuestionó (y hasta avaló en la legislación comunitaria) la soberanía británica sobre el archipiélago.
El reciente giro de la diplomacia argentina en el caso por el atentado contra la AMIA, que posibilitó un acuerdo con el gobierno de Irán -un régimen sancionado por los principales países desarrollados- difícilmente ayudará a ganar amigos en el diferendo por Malvinas. |
” |
“ | But so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’, has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause, maybe except in Latinamerica and some emerging countries. The US remains “neutral” (but with a tacit support of Britain’s position) and Europe never questioned (and even supported with EC legislation and aid) UK sovereignty over the Islands.
Furthermore the recent turn in Argentine diplomacy reaching an understanding with Iran on the investigation into a 1994 attack of a Jewish organization in Buenos Aires comes as a surprise: it is a regime sanctioned by the main developed countries, and this can hardly help to make friends on the Malvinas issue. |
” |
Now dragging myself to the point. Gaba p would like to see the article presenting the official position expressed by Timmerman. The article needs the neutral POV expressed in La Nacion.
I would hope this achieves its intended purpose of letting Gaba P understand that he needs to put his POV to one side if he wishes to edit wikipedia.
So addressing the same points again:
“ | On 2 December 1980 the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Nicholas Ridley, stated in the House of Commons: "We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands... we have a perfectly valid title".[67] The British government regards the right of the islanders to self-determination as "paramount"[67][68] and rejects the idea of negotiations over sovereignty without the islanders' consent. | ” |
There is no need to mention it again. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | While two reliable sources are certainly desirable, I think one is sufficient; newspaper accounts are acceptable-quality sources. All the best, Mini apolis | ” |
Wee Curry Monster translated: "But so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’..." from here.
This is incorrect. The correct idea is "But so far Argentina, [in real terms | in practice | despite Timerman's statement], has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause, <no maybe whatsoever here> except in Latinamerica and some emerging countries.
Lip service means 'giving approval or support insincerely'. This is not implied by the editorial article, on the contrary: the diplomatic support in Latin America is explicitly given as a point in favor of Timerman.
I agree with Kahastok that this way of working is getting impossible to follow... -- Langus ( t) 01:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
As to the rest, I refer you to my previous answer, argumentatively repeating the same points ad nauseum is not discussing. Take it to WP:DRN if you insist but honestly and frankly you're wasting people's time over trivia. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
A high-quality secondary source that can be usefully mined (apologies if previously used) - Hoare, Liam; Jan 11, 2013 Falklands Redux: Is President Kirchner South America's Biggest Troll?, The Atlantic. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Likewise The Guardian's resource, created on 3 January 2013 and updated: The Falkland Islands: everything you ever wanted to know in data and charts -- Wikiain ( talk) 02:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)