![]() | 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
My thoughts, just those that immediately strike me. I'm afraid it's a bit long, but I hope you will take them into account.
I've referred repeatedly to "justification per WP:WEIGHT". This means weight per reliable sources on the subject at hand. Those can be news articles (though per WP:RS other sources are preferred) provided that they are actually about the subject at hand. Sources of any calibre focussed on specific events or statements cannot reasonably be used - nor can sources focussed on other aspects of the subject or on other subjects (related or unrelated). I note with respect to the NPOVN that you have been citing, that one single-sentence response is not exactly a glowing endorsement of your position, and I note that the response does not dispute the point that weight cannot be judged from sources not on the subject at hand. Kahastok talk 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
A lot of these remain. The notion that "countless sources" can be produced is irrelevant to judgement of WP:WEIGHT unless those sources are actually written on the subject at hand. I'm sure that I can provide countless sources to the effect that rabbits eat grass or that Swiss cheese has holes in it - but we wouldn't put either point in the article because you would be unlikely to find either point in a discussion about the Falklands sovereignty dispute, or the positions of third parties in the Falklands sovereignty dispute.
In several cases - "Ruda Statement" and "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", you totally fail to address the point. Even if your points are entirely accurate, and I'm not convinced, it does not matter because they still don't belong in the article. In both cases you seem to be drawing large-scale and far-reaching conclusions for the article from scant evidence. For example, in the case of the "UN is recognizing the Spanish name", you seem to be trying to draw the conclusion that the UN supports Argentina from the fact that it uses "Malvinas" as well as "Falkland". Do you conclude that the UN supports Britain given that the Spanish version of the resolution (Spanish being an official language of the United Nations) was on the Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas (Falkland)? It doesn't - it's just a matter of diplomatic language. Even Security Council Resolution 502 - adopted unamended from a British proposal during the 1982 war - referred to the "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)" in English.
I note that you say that [t]he UK refusal to negotiate is buried in the article. Where do you think this section is going in the article? Once the reader has got to this bit, we can reasonably assume that they've read about the British position. And even if they haven't, it's not exactly difficult to find.
I finally note that WP:WEIGHT is just part of WP:NPOV, and that we have to ensure that we deal with this subject properly neutrally. That does not mean pretending that the British have no support, not matter what Héctor Timerman might think. Kahastok talk 20:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I would be prepared to support the compromise version proposed by WCM, subject to the “listed” and “neutral” misrepresentations’ getting fixed. Apcbg ( talk) 07:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this is tolerable. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
A factual correction: it's formally referred to as the " Commonwealth of Nations". It used to be the "British Commonwealth", but they changed it (I believe in the 1940s). Kahastok talk 19:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, you don't get to weasel out that easily Wee.
1- How do you justify the mention of the Commonwealth adhering to the same
WP:WEIGHT arguments you and Kahastok have been waiving around for weeks? You apparently forgot to take into account that particular bit in my question. Bare in mind that the standard that you are now adhering to (ie: relevance of appearance in news media) is exactly the same one you and Kahastok have been dismissing as not valid for weeks now. You seriously think people here don't notice these kind of things?
Incidentally: you know as well as I do that the "google hits" thing is a well known fallacy in WP. Let me refresh your memory:
WP:GNUM.
2- Funny how you completely chose to disregard this question. Here it goes again: how are you proposing we source this mention? SOURCES WEE. Please present your sources for this statement.
I'm not an unreasonable person Wee, I'm very willing to compromise to reach an agreement. But when you and Kahastok oppose the inclusion of any information citing
WP:WEIGHT and claiming only sources "on the subject at hand" can be used to asses it, and then turn around and without blushing say that the Commonwealth should be added even though you have no sources to back its mention much less any mention of it in a source "on the subject at hand", you'll understand how I must point that you and Kahastok are applying a clear double standard.
Taking into account your behavior I'm not really expecting to hear from you (or Kahastok) an acknowledgment of being wrong or even a direct answer to any of those two very simple questions. Nonetheless I'm giving you both one more chance to give a reasonable response. Next step it's DRN, which would be great if we could just avoid. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Lowell S. Gustafson Assistant Professor of Political Science Villanova University (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536472-9. Retrieved 10 February 2013.
I would bring to everyone's attention that User:Gaba p has started a case at WP:DRN but hasn't notified all participants. See WP:DRN#Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | 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 regional summits. Martin Rodriguez Yebra writing in La Nacion stated "so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’, has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause". Since 1964, 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 issue the last one in 1988, asking both countries to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute bearing in mind the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The European Union classes the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas, and eligible for some European funding initiatives. The US now maintains an official policy of neutrality on the issue but in the 19th Century sided with Britain due to its own disputes with Argentina over rights in the islands. |
” |
My proposal for a straw poll. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | 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 the UK to restart negotiations 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 will not negotiate the sovereignty of the islands until that is the wish of the Islanders themselves. The United States maintains a position of neutrality on the issue. The European Union classifies the islands as a British OCT but takes no position regarding its sovereignty. |
” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. Since 1964, 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 issue. In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. |
” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. Since 1964, 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 issue. In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. |
” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. [1] Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan. [9] [10] Since 1964, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute. [11] The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the issue. [12] In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. [13] The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; [14] [15] however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. [16] At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders right to self-determination. [17] |
” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina continues to pursue 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 regional summits. Commentators suggest the level of actual support is limited, Martin Rodriguez Yebra writing in La Nacion stated "so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’, has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause". China was officially neutral but changed its position to support Argentina, in return for Argentine recognition of its sovereignty over
Taiwan. Since 1964, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute; despite invitations to visit the islands the Decolonization Committee has never done so. The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the issue the last one in 1988, asking both countries to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute bearing in mind the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The Commonwealth of Nations lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders right to self-determination. In 2011, Argentina issued a statement claiming that several caribean members of the Commonwealth of Nations supported the Argentine position, leading them to issue a statement of denial and a reaffirmation of their support for the islander's right to self-determination. The European Union classes the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas, and eligible for some European funding initiatives. The US now maintains an official policy of neutrality on the issue but in the 19th Century sided with Britain due to its own disputes with Argentina over rights in the islands. |
” |
“ | ...[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 claim that the EU has "an official policy of neutrality" raises not so much red flags as large red bedsheets. These matters are decided by unanimity in the EU, and Britain would have had the opportunity a veto any such proposed policy. I cannot conceive that the British would not have used that veto. I further note that neither of the sources raised in support of this makes refers to the position as "neutral" or "neutrality", and neither source refers clearly to it an official position according to European law. Kahastok talk 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
All in all, this one seems as the only proposal with chances of being accepted (without much enthusiasm) by everyone. I'd say we go with it, or that we use it as a base for a diff-based approach of collaborative editing as we did here. I prefer the former, honestly... It's already been more than a month. -- Langus ( t) 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the mention of the UNGA should mention that the 1988 resolution is also the most recent one. The text currently fails to indicate that the resolutions dried up 25 years ago and have never restarted, which I think is an important point here.
China is a significant economic power, but it is not so powerful politically that its POV is necessarily significant in all cases regardless of circumstances - even in a dispute half way around the world, where China has no clear current or historical stake. And indeed one of the sources strongly implies that for China this as a quid pro quo - China wants Argentine support over Taiwan and regards supporting Argentina over the Falklands to be the price of that support.
I find the case that Gaba makes for China to be near-identical to the cases he has previously made for several others, and it seems to me that the answer is no different. I see it as the thin end of the wedge - the thick end being the full-blown list of countries that is widely opposed here. Per policy, only reliable secondary sources on the subject at hand are appropriate for judging weight, and I note that several of the sources that Gaba claims as evidence are primary sources, and/or are not on the subject at hand but are specifically on the subject of individual summits or statements. I'm sure we can find a lot of sources about the Argentina-England football match in the 1986 World Cup - but that doesn't provide evidence that we should be giving a match report in this article. For the same reason, I see no policy-based reason for China to be mentioned in this article. Kahastok talk 20:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Scjessey, what do you think about China's position and the sources presented? Let me note that there has been no source presented yet to back the mention of the Commonwealth and that Wee and Kahastok oppose any mention of China (7 sources presented) but lobby for the inclusion of the Commonwealth (0 sources presented) I see this simply as a clear double standard and I'm inclined to open a ticket at DRN to get outside opinions. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 22:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Because there's no need to do so! And it would be extremely complicated, if not impossible: the UK would oppose and unanimity is required. Here you have his full answer, in Spanish as it was originally given:
“ | Hay cierta confusión en este tema porque el hecho de que en el Tratado de Lisboa se contemple a las Malvinas como parte del territorio británico es puramente descriptivo. Los Estados enumeran sus territorios. Es un artículo que venía de antes, de tratados anteriores. Ello no implica un reconocimiento de la soberanía de Gran Bretaña en Malvinas por parte de los países europeos. Esto se debe definir de manera bilateral entre el Reino Unido y la Argentina. Hoy las Malvinas están bajo jurisdicción del Reino Unido y es un hecho. Esto se debe discutir con la Argentina. No tiene sentido revisar el Tratado de Lisboa en este caso. Si no, España no podría haber firmado con Gran Bretaña ese tratado de la UE por la disputa que hay por el Peñón de Gibraltar. Ese es un tema bilateral de esos países. Por lo tanto, no tiene sentido revisar el Tratado de Lisboa por el tema de Malvinas. Además, para ello se requeriría unanimidad de todos los Parlamentos y de todas las instancias del bloque. | ” |
Source: Díez Torres: "El tema de las Malvinas no entra en la política exterior europea"
And it makes sense: this annex has formerly contained territories that are now independent countries, such as: Vietnam, Morocco, Cameroon, Rwanda, Suriname, Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Brunei, etc.
Gibraltar is covered under Article 355(3), which applies to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible". Declaration 55 of the Treaty ("Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") says that "The Treaties apply to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned". That is, sovereignty issue is avoided.
Argentina is forced to protest its inclusion, "to safeguard the Argentine position regarding Islas Malvinas". Not doing so could be alleged as an act of sovereignty by the UK not protested by anyone. -- Langus ( t) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't support the revised draft, the Commonwealth of Nations plays a significant role in the Falkland Islands and to simply not mention it is illogical and doesn't reflect the weight attached in sources. I have provided secondary sources, I've been doing so for some time, so I can't understand why you say there are none. I was prepared to compromise to accept the previous draft in order to get an agreement, this draft I cannot simply because it is pushing an agenda favouring Argentine claims by what it omits. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
@Wee: if you want to include the Commonwealth you need sources that mention the Commonwealth's position on the issue. I know you understand this and thus I see your constant beating around the bush as simply an acknowledgement that you have no such sources.
@Langus: I agree that the way the EU is being mentioned right now is biased towards implying a "support" of some sort towards the British position and that a sentence like the one you propose is needed to put the inclusion of the islands in EU's constitution into proper context.
@Scjessey: I agree that your current version is the most suitable for its inclusion. I would only make a minor change at this moment, this "interests of the Falkland Islanders" for this "interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". The last phrasing is verbatim taken from the 1965 resolution and I believe it to be more neutral. In any case this can also be talked about later on, after your version is added into the article.
@All: I would like to draw the attention of other editors here to the noticeboards where Wee and I have raised this issue:
NPOVN and
DRN. In both noticeboards un-involved editors have commented that reliable secondary sources such as newspapers are perfectly valid to establish weight and asses the merit of a given country's inclusion; a point they refuse to take. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
13:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This reversion by Kahastok is unnecessary. I believe the section as added represents a reasonable compromise of all positions. It includes the Commonwealth stuff desired by Wee, and also the China stuff desired by Gaba. Both have been modified to make them palatable to both "sides". I would like to see Kahastok self-revert, or at least consent to it being restored. There is no reason why we cannot continue to modify the section afterward, but I think this represents a reasonable base section from which to move forward. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster asked me to provide some input. After reading the above discussion, I continue to believe that Wee Curry Monster's proposal from the DRN case is a good middle ground, that is consistent with WP policies. That proposal was:
1. Argentine motivations (a) Domestic politics (b) 1994 Constitution
2. Argentine diplomatic offensive to constantly raise the issue
3. Latin American support noting that commentators observe it is little more than "lip service"
4. US official policy of neutrality but noting that previously it supported the UK due to its own dispute over the Falklands
5. Commonwealth of Nations support for the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination
6. EU dimension
7. China's previous ambivalent position changing to support due to a quid pro quo with Argentina in return for support on Taiwan.
I also think that the recent text that was in the article is fine:
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan. Since 1964, 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 issue. In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders right to self-determination.
I also think that keeping all text out of the article until a final agreement is reached in the Talk page is not best for WP readers. That could lead to 1 editor filibustering and preventing any text from being inserted. Best is to insert some middle-ground text; then identify the 2 or 3 issues with the text; then to have RfCs on the specific issues. But that could take 2 or 3 months, and leaving the text out for the duration is not ideal. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Noleander: I've added citations to the
nearly consensual version above. Please tell me if there's anything else you need before adding the section into the article.
The problem with Wee's version you mention above is that it has failed to get consensus (for many reasons not worth getting into again). You'll see that all the proposed versions are quite similar except the last one proposed by Wee which is the largest (even though he and Kahastok argued the section needed to be small) and the one that introduces the most disputable statements (which is why it's not even close to being a middle ground).
My last version on the other hand, which is really
Scjessey's version to which I made minor additions to accommodate Wee and Kahastok's requests, is the closest one to full consensus. I'd appreciate it if you could add it back into the article because if I do so either Wee or Kahastok will immediately remove it. Regards
Gaba p (
talk)
18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
(PS: this "water down the support Argentina enjoys" is a completely made up statement.)
(ec)
Scjessey: I'm not really responding to Wee anymore because what he proposes, as you correctly point out, is basically that we start from square one discussing yet another version (or another group of additions) by him. As you know, this is not reasonable. The version I proposed is your version with three edits to accommodate Wee's requests: the Commonwealth, Canada and China mentioned the way he wanted to. Even though I compromised to all his requests he's still opposing.
The discussion at DRN is closed so there are really no separate discussions, just this one. I find it rather amusing how Wee now accuses me of "censoring content on wikipedia" when it was him and Kahastok who completely deleted the old version of the section. Oh, the irony.
Noleander: you'll see that I present several sources for the "Latin America" sentence. Wee believes this is "bias in the guise of citations" (does such a thing exist?) so feel free to select the ones you feel are more relevant or ask here if you want me to trim those sources down to just a few. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the text with references. If we could start a new section to discuss it from here on, that would be great.
Wee, if you have a source for "changing its position from neutral" I won't oppose this inclusion. --
Langus (
t)
01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
First of all: your personal attacks and aggressiveness are not helpful. Second: everything I ever add to the article is 100% sourced by reliable sources. Third: your mention of Chavez's crass comments is borderline racist. Fourth: I really do not appreciate you insulting me so please let that be the last time. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 13:23, 26 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
My thoughts, just those that immediately strike me. I'm afraid it's a bit long, but I hope you will take them into account.
I've referred repeatedly to "justification per WP:WEIGHT". This means weight per reliable sources on the subject at hand. Those can be news articles (though per WP:RS other sources are preferred) provided that they are actually about the subject at hand. Sources of any calibre focussed on specific events or statements cannot reasonably be used - nor can sources focussed on other aspects of the subject or on other subjects (related or unrelated). I note with respect to the NPOVN that you have been citing, that one single-sentence response is not exactly a glowing endorsement of your position, and I note that the response does not dispute the point that weight cannot be judged from sources not on the subject at hand. Kahastok talk 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
A lot of these remain. The notion that "countless sources" can be produced is irrelevant to judgement of WP:WEIGHT unless those sources are actually written on the subject at hand. I'm sure that I can provide countless sources to the effect that rabbits eat grass or that Swiss cheese has holes in it - but we wouldn't put either point in the article because you would be unlikely to find either point in a discussion about the Falklands sovereignty dispute, or the positions of third parties in the Falklands sovereignty dispute.
In several cases - "Ruda Statement" and "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", you totally fail to address the point. Even if your points are entirely accurate, and I'm not convinced, it does not matter because they still don't belong in the article. In both cases you seem to be drawing large-scale and far-reaching conclusions for the article from scant evidence. For example, in the case of the "UN is recognizing the Spanish name", you seem to be trying to draw the conclusion that the UN supports Argentina from the fact that it uses "Malvinas" as well as "Falkland". Do you conclude that the UN supports Britain given that the Spanish version of the resolution (Spanish being an official language of the United Nations) was on the Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas (Falkland)? It doesn't - it's just a matter of diplomatic language. Even Security Council Resolution 502 - adopted unamended from a British proposal during the 1982 war - referred to the "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)" in English.
I note that you say that [t]he UK refusal to negotiate is buried in the article. Where do you think this section is going in the article? Once the reader has got to this bit, we can reasonably assume that they've read about the British position. And even if they haven't, it's not exactly difficult to find.
I finally note that WP:WEIGHT is just part of WP:NPOV, and that we have to ensure that we deal with this subject properly neutrally. That does not mean pretending that the British have no support, not matter what Héctor Timerman might think. Kahastok talk 20:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I would be prepared to support the compromise version proposed by WCM, subject to the “listed” and “neutral” misrepresentations’ getting fixed. Apcbg ( talk) 07:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this is tolerable. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
A factual correction: it's formally referred to as the " Commonwealth of Nations". It used to be the "British Commonwealth", but they changed it (I believe in the 1940s). Kahastok talk 19:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, you don't get to weasel out that easily Wee.
1- How do you justify the mention of the Commonwealth adhering to the same
WP:WEIGHT arguments you and Kahastok have been waiving around for weeks? You apparently forgot to take into account that particular bit in my question. Bare in mind that the standard that you are now adhering to (ie: relevance of appearance in news media) is exactly the same one you and Kahastok have been dismissing as not valid for weeks now. You seriously think people here don't notice these kind of things?
Incidentally: you know as well as I do that the "google hits" thing is a well known fallacy in WP. Let me refresh your memory:
WP:GNUM.
2- Funny how you completely chose to disregard this question. Here it goes again: how are you proposing we source this mention? SOURCES WEE. Please present your sources for this statement.
I'm not an unreasonable person Wee, I'm very willing to compromise to reach an agreement. But when you and Kahastok oppose the inclusion of any information citing
WP:WEIGHT and claiming only sources "on the subject at hand" can be used to asses it, and then turn around and without blushing say that the Commonwealth should be added even though you have no sources to back its mention much less any mention of it in a source "on the subject at hand", you'll understand how I must point that you and Kahastok are applying a clear double standard.
Taking into account your behavior I'm not really expecting to hear from you (or Kahastok) an acknowledgment of being wrong or even a direct answer to any of those two very simple questions. Nonetheless I'm giving you both one more chance to give a reasonable response. Next step it's DRN, which would be great if we could just avoid. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Lowell S. Gustafson Assistant Professor of Political Science Villanova University (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536472-9. Retrieved 10 February 2013.
I would bring to everyone's attention that User:Gaba p has started a case at WP:DRN but hasn't notified all participants. See WP:DRN#Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | 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 regional summits. Martin Rodriguez Yebra writing in La Nacion stated "so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’, has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause". Since 1964, 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 issue the last one in 1988, asking both countries to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute bearing in mind the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The European Union classes the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas, and eligible for some European funding initiatives. The US now maintains an official policy of neutrality on the issue but in the 19th Century sided with Britain due to its own disputes with Argentina over rights in the islands. |
” |
My proposal for a straw poll. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | 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 the UK to restart negotiations 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 will not negotiate the sovereignty of the islands until that is the wish of the Islanders themselves. The United States maintains a position of neutrality on the issue. The European Union classifies the islands as a British OCT but takes no position regarding its sovereignty. |
” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. Since 1964, 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 issue. In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. |
” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. Since 1964, 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 issue. In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. |
” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. [1] Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan. [9] [10] Since 1964, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute. [11] The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the issue. [12] In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. [13] The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; [14] [15] however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. [16] At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders right to self-determination. [17] |
” |
“ | International and regional views
Argentina continues to pursue 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 regional summits. Commentators suggest the level of actual support is limited, Martin Rodriguez Yebra writing in La Nacion stated "so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’, has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause". China was officially neutral but changed its position to support Argentina, in return for Argentine recognition of its sovereignty over
Taiwan. Since 1964, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute; despite invitations to visit the islands the Decolonization Committee has never done so. The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the issue the last one in 1988, asking both countries to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute bearing in mind the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The Commonwealth of Nations lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders right to self-determination. In 2011, Argentina issued a statement claiming that several caribean members of the Commonwealth of Nations supported the Argentine position, leading them to issue a statement of denial and a reaffirmation of their support for the islander's right to self-determination. The European Union classes the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas, and eligible for some European funding initiatives. The US now maintains an official policy of neutrality on the issue but in the 19th Century sided with Britain due to its own disputes with Argentina over rights in the islands. |
” |
“ | ...[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 claim that the EU has "an official policy of neutrality" raises not so much red flags as large red bedsheets. These matters are decided by unanimity in the EU, and Britain would have had the opportunity a veto any such proposed policy. I cannot conceive that the British would not have used that veto. I further note that neither of the sources raised in support of this makes refers to the position as "neutral" or "neutrality", and neither source refers clearly to it an official position according to European law. Kahastok talk 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
All in all, this one seems as the only proposal with chances of being accepted (without much enthusiasm) by everyone. I'd say we go with it, or that we use it as a base for a diff-based approach of collaborative editing as we did here. I prefer the former, honestly... It's already been more than a month. -- Langus ( t) 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the mention of the UNGA should mention that the 1988 resolution is also the most recent one. The text currently fails to indicate that the resolutions dried up 25 years ago and have never restarted, which I think is an important point here.
China is a significant economic power, but it is not so powerful politically that its POV is necessarily significant in all cases regardless of circumstances - even in a dispute half way around the world, where China has no clear current or historical stake. And indeed one of the sources strongly implies that for China this as a quid pro quo - China wants Argentine support over Taiwan and regards supporting Argentina over the Falklands to be the price of that support.
I find the case that Gaba makes for China to be near-identical to the cases he has previously made for several others, and it seems to me that the answer is no different. I see it as the thin end of the wedge - the thick end being the full-blown list of countries that is widely opposed here. Per policy, only reliable secondary sources on the subject at hand are appropriate for judging weight, and I note that several of the sources that Gaba claims as evidence are primary sources, and/or are not on the subject at hand but are specifically on the subject of individual summits or statements. I'm sure we can find a lot of sources about the Argentina-England football match in the 1986 World Cup - but that doesn't provide evidence that we should be giving a match report in this article. For the same reason, I see no policy-based reason for China to be mentioned in this article. Kahastok talk 20:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Scjessey, what do you think about China's position and the sources presented? Let me note that there has been no source presented yet to back the mention of the Commonwealth and that Wee and Kahastok oppose any mention of China (7 sources presented) but lobby for the inclusion of the Commonwealth (0 sources presented) I see this simply as a clear double standard and I'm inclined to open a ticket at DRN to get outside opinions. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 22:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Because there's no need to do so! And it would be extremely complicated, if not impossible: the UK would oppose and unanimity is required. Here you have his full answer, in Spanish as it was originally given:
“ | Hay cierta confusión en este tema porque el hecho de que en el Tratado de Lisboa se contemple a las Malvinas como parte del territorio británico es puramente descriptivo. Los Estados enumeran sus territorios. Es un artículo que venía de antes, de tratados anteriores. Ello no implica un reconocimiento de la soberanía de Gran Bretaña en Malvinas por parte de los países europeos. Esto se debe definir de manera bilateral entre el Reino Unido y la Argentina. Hoy las Malvinas están bajo jurisdicción del Reino Unido y es un hecho. Esto se debe discutir con la Argentina. No tiene sentido revisar el Tratado de Lisboa en este caso. Si no, España no podría haber firmado con Gran Bretaña ese tratado de la UE por la disputa que hay por el Peñón de Gibraltar. Ese es un tema bilateral de esos países. Por lo tanto, no tiene sentido revisar el Tratado de Lisboa por el tema de Malvinas. Además, para ello se requeriría unanimidad de todos los Parlamentos y de todas las instancias del bloque. | ” |
Source: Díez Torres: "El tema de las Malvinas no entra en la política exterior europea"
And it makes sense: this annex has formerly contained territories that are now independent countries, such as: Vietnam, Morocco, Cameroon, Rwanda, Suriname, Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Brunei, etc.
Gibraltar is covered under Article 355(3), which applies to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible". Declaration 55 of the Treaty ("Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") says that "The Treaties apply to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned". That is, sovereignty issue is avoided.
Argentina is forced to protest its inclusion, "to safeguard the Argentine position regarding Islas Malvinas". Not doing so could be alleged as an act of sovereignty by the UK not protested by anyone. -- Langus ( t) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't support the revised draft, the Commonwealth of Nations plays a significant role in the Falkland Islands and to simply not mention it is illogical and doesn't reflect the weight attached in sources. I have provided secondary sources, I've been doing so for some time, so I can't understand why you say there are none. I was prepared to compromise to accept the previous draft in order to get an agreement, this draft I cannot simply because it is pushing an agenda favouring Argentine claims by what it omits. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
@Wee: if you want to include the Commonwealth you need sources that mention the Commonwealth's position on the issue. I know you understand this and thus I see your constant beating around the bush as simply an acknowledgement that you have no such sources.
@Langus: I agree that the way the EU is being mentioned right now is biased towards implying a "support" of some sort towards the British position and that a sentence like the one you propose is needed to put the inclusion of the islands in EU's constitution into proper context.
@Scjessey: I agree that your current version is the most suitable for its inclusion. I would only make a minor change at this moment, this "interests of the Falkland Islanders" for this "interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". The last phrasing is verbatim taken from the 1965 resolution and I believe it to be more neutral. In any case this can also be talked about later on, after your version is added into the article.
@All: I would like to draw the attention of other editors here to the noticeboards where Wee and I have raised this issue:
NPOVN and
DRN. In both noticeboards un-involved editors have commented that reliable secondary sources such as newspapers are perfectly valid to establish weight and asses the merit of a given country's inclusion; a point they refuse to take. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
13:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This reversion by Kahastok is unnecessary. I believe the section as added represents a reasonable compromise of all positions. It includes the Commonwealth stuff desired by Wee, and also the China stuff desired by Gaba. Both have been modified to make them palatable to both "sides". I would like to see Kahastok self-revert, or at least consent to it being restored. There is no reason why we cannot continue to modify the section afterward, but I think this represents a reasonable base section from which to move forward. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster asked me to provide some input. After reading the above discussion, I continue to believe that Wee Curry Monster's proposal from the DRN case is a good middle ground, that is consistent with WP policies. That proposal was:
1. Argentine motivations (a) Domestic politics (b) 1994 Constitution
2. Argentine diplomatic offensive to constantly raise the issue
3. Latin American support noting that commentators observe it is little more than "lip service"
4. US official policy of neutrality but noting that previously it supported the UK due to its own dispute over the Falklands
5. Commonwealth of Nations support for the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination
6. EU dimension
7. China's previous ambivalent position changing to support due to a quid pro quo with Argentina in return for support on Taiwan.
I also think that the recent text that was in the article is fine:
Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan. Since 1964, 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 issue. In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders right to self-determination.
I also think that keeping all text out of the article until a final agreement is reached in the Talk page is not best for WP readers. That could lead to 1 editor filibustering and preventing any text from being inserted. Best is to insert some middle-ground text; then identify the 2 or 3 issues with the text; then to have RfCs on the specific issues. But that could take 2 or 3 months, and leaving the text out for the duration is not ideal. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Noleander: I've added citations to the
nearly consensual version above. Please tell me if there's anything else you need before adding the section into the article.
The problem with Wee's version you mention above is that it has failed to get consensus (for many reasons not worth getting into again). You'll see that all the proposed versions are quite similar except the last one proposed by Wee which is the largest (even though he and Kahastok argued the section needed to be small) and the one that introduces the most disputable statements (which is why it's not even close to being a middle ground).
My last version on the other hand, which is really
Scjessey's version to which I made minor additions to accommodate Wee and Kahastok's requests, is the closest one to full consensus. I'd appreciate it if you could add it back into the article because if I do so either Wee or Kahastok will immediately remove it. Regards
Gaba p (
talk)
18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
(PS: this "water down the support Argentina enjoys" is a completely made up statement.)
(ec)
Scjessey: I'm not really responding to Wee anymore because what he proposes, as you correctly point out, is basically that we start from square one discussing yet another version (or another group of additions) by him. As you know, this is not reasonable. The version I proposed is your version with three edits to accommodate Wee's requests: the Commonwealth, Canada and China mentioned the way he wanted to. Even though I compromised to all his requests he's still opposing.
The discussion at DRN is closed so there are really no separate discussions, just this one. I find it rather amusing how Wee now accuses me of "censoring content on wikipedia" when it was him and Kahastok who completely deleted the old version of the section. Oh, the irony.
Noleander: you'll see that I present several sources for the "Latin America" sentence. Wee believes this is "bias in the guise of citations" (does such a thing exist?) so feel free to select the ones you feel are more relevant or ask here if you want me to trim those sources down to just a few. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the text with references. If we could start a new section to discuss it from here on, that would be great.
Wee, if you have a source for "changing its position from neutral" I won't oppose this inclusion. --
Langus (
t)
01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
First of all: your personal attacks and aggressiveness are not helpful. Second: everything I ever add to the article is 100% sourced by reliable sources. Third: your mention of Chavez's crass comments is borderline racist. Fourth: I really do not appreciate you insulting me so please let that be the last time. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 13:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)