Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Sovereignty dispute - Change in sentence

I've reverted to the old version before I or anybody made any changes so we can discuss them here. Right now it states:

“ ...and that the United Kingdom exceeded their authority by allegedly expelling the Argentine settlers in 1833.[1] ”

I proposed to remove the "allegedly" as per unnecessary in a claim (and clearly contentious) and the "exceeded their authority" since this in not mentioned in the source at all (and even worst it implies the UK had any authority to begin with, which creates yet another issue):

“ ...and that the United Kingdom expelled Argentine authorities through force in 1833.[2] ”

This version includes CMD edit (ie: "authorities") A better version I believe would be one that has both claims in the source and so is 100% representative of it, like so:

“ ...and that the United Kingdom expelled the people that had settled there along with its authorities by force in 1833.[3] ”

This last version is the one I propose. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Argentine Government statement reads:

After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base.

This statement is quite clear that it was the Argentine authorities, not the Argentine settlers who were expelled.

Darwin, when he visited the settlement in 1833 wrote

The present inhabitants consist of one Englishman, who has resided here for some years, & has now the charge of the British flag, 20 Spaniards & three women, two of whom are negresses.

This backs up the statement that one English settler was left in charge of the flag and also that there were a number of Spanish [Argentine?] settlers left behind.

I have reverted the text to reflect that the Argentine text as it appears on the Internet.

Martinvl (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Martin, the Argentine text also states:

“ This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. ”

Thus the Argentine Government also claims the settlers were expelled, otherwise I concur with your proposed edit. Similarly in 1964 Jose Maria Ruda first enunciated this claim at the UN, its repeated annually at the C24 and is a key part of the Argentine claim - otherwise it has no basis for denying the self-determination right of the islanders.

I have added the text Gaba p suggested earlier. And will copy edited your proposal slightly. I trust you find this is acceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop editing before a consensus is reached. I've reverted back to the old version (the one before any of the last few days edits)

I agree with Martinvl's proposal but not with the addition of Gustafson or any other sources either "rebutting" or "supporting" any claims. I repeat: that section in this article is not the place for that and doing so will only result in sources and amendments (such as "This and this author state that...") for and against being added to the rest of the claims, both Argentinian and British.

Would either Martinvl or Wee please paste their proposed edits here so the rest of the editors can comment and discuss before changing the article? Thank you. Gaba p (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're not prepared to accept the proposals offered by Martin and myself, I am content to leave the article at the previous stable consensus as it is reasonably neutral to my mind. I'm not happy supporting texts that effectively give only the Argentine claim and remove other significant viewpoints as given in the literature. Remember we do not achieve NPOV by stating the Argentine and British POV explicitly, rather we describe both from a neutral perspective. Mine and Martin's proposal did just that. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood, you vote to leave as is. Lets await to see what other editors have to say. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am in two minds it is only an allegation (and a contested one, but then so are most of the claims by both sides. I would suggest that we add alleged to any other claim that is contested.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors please vote (and discuss)

So as per Slatersteven's suggestion we should be adding alleged to at least the self-determination UK claim (clearly contested) which would make it look like this:

Edit (1): ...and the islanders’ alleged "right to self determination, including their right to remain British if that is their wish"

(emphasis added just for clarity here)

This leaves the problem with the wording "exceeded their authority" which is not present in the source (and furthermore has political connotations) May I suggest:

Edit (2): ...and that the United Kingdom incurred in an "act of force" by allegedly expelling the Argentine settlers in 1833

as a middle ground? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Silly semantic argument. Britain' position is the islanders have the right to self-determination, Argentina denies this based on the allegation of the expulsion of settlers in 1833 but as noted in sources, not my personal opinion, the contemporary historical record both Argentine and British is in agreement and neutral 3rd party academic sources state this did not happen. Again to reiterate NPOV requires we describe the Argentine and British POV from a neutral perspective, it doesn't require wikipedia to be a platform to repeat the Argentine POV verbatim. So in the event you frustrate consensus building by insisting solely on presenting Argentina's view without representing the wider views in the literature, then I for one prefer the current text, imperfect though it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Struck through my comment as the talk page has been edited subsequently to make this look like a straw poll. It wasn't I commented specifically on a proposal, which was disruptive in nature and playing semantic games. For User:Gaba p's reference, consensus is not a vote, wikipedia doesn't decide content on majority vote and for other editors benefit there are other edits that have been proposed, which treat the subject matter per WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted, you prefer to not take part of the voting process. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you edited the talk page after I commented to infer I was voting in a straw poll. This is contrary to WP:TPG and actually a blockable offense. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you truly believe I acted in bad faith then by all means my friend: WP:ANI. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support (of course) both edits (1) and (2). Good, I like the voting system, it's direct and non-ambiguous. Just adding my vote here for easier counting later. Lets wait and see what other editors have to say. PS: I took the liberty of adding an asterisk at the beginning of your comment for better viewing of the votes/positions. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment What does "incurred in an "act of force" " mean? It's not a phrase I've seen before. CMD (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's taken verbatim from the source that states the Argentinian claim (no interpretation being made whatsoever), unlike the current wording that says "the UK exceeded their authority" which is completely made up. It specifically refers to the forcible removal of at least some of the Argentinian inhabitants and its authorities by the UK. . Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unhelpful proposal deviating from NPOV. Apcbg (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you expand on your comment please? The proposal is a middle ground which includes Slatersteven's proposal. Why do you think it's NPOV to add alleged to an Argentinian claim but not to a similarly disputed UK claim (ie: self-determination)? And, why do you find the wording exceeded their authority which does not appear in the original source better that the wording incurred in an act of force which is taken verbatim from it? Also, feel free to propose an edit of your own. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Bit tough this Gaba, I think that the right of self determination is not alleged (as I do not re-call any one disputing it). Also the right of self-determination is a key the UN undertaking by the UN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The right of self-determination by the current inhabitants is 100% disputed by Argentina: "Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina."[4] (emphasis added) Is that what you meant? What do you think of edit (2) replacing the current wording by an accurate one (and one that actually appears in the source)? Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit two makes no sense (what did they incur?). But as Argentina disputes the right of self determination, I think alleged seems appropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good, we agree on edit (1) then. You may be right about edit (2), how does this sound: ...and that the United Kingdom allegedly expelled Argentine settlers in 1833 by an "act of force"., or even simpler yet: ...and that the United Kingdom allegedly expelled Argentine settlers in 1833. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gaba that "This is a political dispute. The UK has its claims and Argentina has its own. We present them period. We do not attempt to extract truth from either one." Where do the words "exceeded their authority" and "Argentine settlers" come from. I have rephrased that sentence using bringing in the words "threat of "greater force"" (a paraphrase of the Argentinain text "threatened to use greater force") and the text "Argentine authorities" is taken straight from the Argentine document. If anyone can improve on this summary, please do so, but please take note of Gaba's statement above. Martinvl (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Except Martin, I am not extracting truth from either one, it seems clear you haven't read the discussion, since I include a link above and a quote to the element you've removed. You aren't summarising the Argentine claim, merely part of it and you're not presenting all views in the literature. Half way through a discussion you've chosen to impose a solution. I have tagged your edit for its failure to consider NPOV. I won't comment on your motives but I think between us we both know why you've done this. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but implication of motive is still a comment on motive, and no your edit does not expand the Argentine claim, it comments on i.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC).

Proposals

1) The United Kingdom bases its claim on continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (apart from the Argentine military occupation in 1982) and the islanders’ "right to self determination, including their right to remain British if that is their wish". Argentina claims that it acquired the islands from Spain when Argentina became independent in 1816 and that the United Kingdom expelled the Argentine authorities and settlers by force in 1833. Authors such as Gustafson concur that only the Argentine authorities were expelled, not the settlers.

Note the British position is in quotes, all of the views in the literature are expressed including those which comment on the historical relevance of Argentina's claim. This I believe satifies NPOV by representing all views in the literature and describes the matter from a neutral perspective.

2) The United Kingdom bases its claim on continuous administration of the islands since 1833 and the islanders’ "right to self determination, including their right to remain British if that is their wish". Argentina claims that it acquired the islands from Spain when Argentina became independent in 1816.

Straightforward statement of the basis of both claims.

3) The United Kingdom bases its claim on continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (apart from the Argentine military occupation in 1982) and the islanders’ "right to self determination, including their right to remain British if that is their wish". Argentina claims that it acquired the islands from Spain when Argentina became independent in 1816 and that the United Kingdom exceeded their authority by allegedly expelling the Argentine settlers in 1833.

Current article.

There is of course User:Gaba p's suggestion above. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Support 1, 2 or 3, Oppose Gaba p proposal. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I could support 2, but if only one Argentinian claim is to be mentioned then only one british claim should be mentioned too, don't you think? Otherwise we'd be giving more weight to the british claim. This is what I propose:

2) The United Kingdom bases its claim on continuous administration of the islands since 1833.[1] Argentina claims that it acquired the islands from Spain when Argentina became independent in 1816.[2]

The first one is also fine but of course the last sentence does not belong since it just opens the gate to completely fill tat section with sources for and against each claim, which would quickly turn into a mess. So I support this form of it:

1) The United Kingdom bases its claim on continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (apart from the Argentine military occupation in 1982) and the islanders’ "right to self determination, including their right to remain British if that is their wish".[1] Argentina claims that it acquired the islands from Spain when Argentina became independent in 1816 and that the United Kingdom expelled the Argentine authorities and settlers by force in 1833.[2]

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Option two, lets just take out the disputed line.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, seeing as Gaba p tagged the article in the middle of a GA drive. This appears to have broad consensus at the moment and his objection to (2) as originally written is frankly silly. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you went ahead and edited the article while the discussion was still going. I wonder what would you have said had I done the same thing... I removed the self-determination mention as to comply with option 2. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are now effectively edit-warring an edit into the article Wee. I'd advise you to drop it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I edited because you used tags as a badge of shame in the middle of a GA drive, whilst the discussion was still ongoing. I've self-reverted to the article as you badged it. I am not going to indulge you in an edit war. You claim there is a POV problem but oppose any edit that addresses the issue, I don't see any serious attempt to build a consensus from you, simply tactics to frustrate it. As I see it, you're simply trying to game the system; your edits violate WP:NPOV and your objections to neutral edits are not based in any policy relevant to creating a wikipedia article. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wee, if I had edited the article after Slatersteven agreed with one of my proposed edits early on, I can't imagine what you would've accused me of. The tags are not a "badge of shame" as you like to call them, but a necessary addition to the text (and correct me if I'm wrong but after you couldn't get your way at the Self-determination article you left a giant NPOV disputed banner, still there by the way. Talking about badges of shame...)

I agree with your edit (2) but if we are to mention the two most important claims by the UK (administration since 1833 + self-determination) then we should likewise mention the counter two most important claims by Argentina (acquired in 1816 + expulsion of settlers+authorities) I really don't see why you feel that giving more weight to the British claim is NPOV. Imagine yourself on the other side of the argument and think what would you say if I (or any other editor) tried to give more weight to the Argentinian claim.

I also agree with your edit (1) but if we are not quoting sources to rebut the British claims I don't see why we should do so with the Argentinian claims.

I compromised by accepting two of your edits with minor changes, you apparently won't compromise about anything. The idea is to have a balanced and NPOV article Wee, let's try to get it done, shall we? Regards Gaba p (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've left it tagged at Self-determination as you will edit war to insist on a text that is not neutral, abusing a source to infer a meaning not intended by the original author. You're not interested in a balanced and NPOV article, either here or there. What you assert to be a British claim is not, the contemporary record of events both Argentine and British are in agreement, the settlement remained. Straight question, why can you not present a contemporary source that refers to this supposed expulsion of the settlement. Just one source, either Argentine or British from 1833 that refers to it. Speaks volumes doesn't it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wee stop for a second and listen to yourself. You are not a historian and this is not the manuscript of your book. You seriously don't realize that every time you attempt to present a British claim as the truth you are incurring in blatant POV? We are not here to decide which side is right Wee, we present what the sources say (not analyzing and/or inferring from primary sources) in the most balanced way possible. This is a political dispute. The UK has its claims and Argentina has its own. We present them period. We do not attempt to extract truth from either one.

Look, I can understand you having a preference for the British claim. We are not robots, everybody is "biased" in a way. But you just need to stop letting your bias affect your editing Wee. We'll never reach a consensus if you are not willing to step back and realize that WP is not the place for righting great wrongs. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with WP:GREATWRONGS, wikipedia isn't a platform for stating the Argentine POV anymore than it is for stating the British POV. Achieving a NPOV we describe both from a neutral perspective. As regards NPOV, we present all of the major views in the literature, you are editing to remove major historical views simply because they contradict modern Argentine claims.

Again I'm forced to repeat, it is NOT a British claim, I don't know how many times I have had to say that, in return you simply keep repeating the same Mantra.

Don Pinedo was the Argentine commander of the ARA Sarandi, his testimony is NOT British.

Gustafson is American, his testimony is NOT British.

Risman is American, his testimony is NOT British.

Goebels was a German emigre to America at Yale University, his testimony is NOT British.

Anything that contradicts Argentine claims you simply dismiss as a "British claim", simply ignoring that it comes from neutral 3rd party academic sources. This is tendentious conduct and its simple filibustering nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wee in the last couple of days you have accussed me of "hijacking a discussion"[5], "tendentious argumenting"[6], "canvassing"[7], "filibustering"[8], editor Langus-TxT of "tag teaming"[9] and editor Martinvl of "hijacking the FI working group"[10], "edit warring"[11], "pushing and wikilawyering"[12] and along with editor Michael Glass of "making personal attacks"[13] and "remorseless campaign of wikilawyering, gaming the system and generally boring other editors into submission"[14]. Perhaps it's time to ease up on the PA's?

The current edit by Martin is perfectly fine in the sense that it mentions both the British and the Argentine claims accurately and with no NPOV issues whatsoever. Just like what happened at Self-determination you have added a giant NPOV disputed banner after not getting your way (to think that just yesterday you were accusing me of threatening the GA by adding two citation tags...) Fine, let's wait to hear from other editors about this. Sadly it's looking increasingly clear that you are not prepared to give an inch in your position though. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

When you stop repeating ad nauseum the same (false) claim that comments by neutral 3rd party academic sources can be dismissed as a British claim, after I have repeatedly pointing out this is not so, then I will stop commenting about tendentious arguments. I suggest you look up tendentious. It isn't a personal attack when it happens to be true. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

May I propose the following text to describe the Argentine position:

In a lengthy document^{Ref xx} stating its position, the Argentine government asserted that the United Kingdom had "occupied the islands by force" but elsewhere in the same document asserted that the United Kingdom had only "threatened to use greater force". One part of the document asserted that the United Kingdom had expelled the "Argentine authorities" but elsewhere it states that the United Kingdom had "expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return". Darwin, when he visited the settlement on 1 March 1833 wrote

The present inhabitants consist of one Englishman, who has resided here for some years, & has now the charge of the British flag, 20 Spaniards & three women, two of whom are negresses.

I believe that this text clearly identifies inconsistencies in the Argentine position in a as neutral a manner as possible and the inclusion of Darwin's statement helps to put things into perspective.

Martinvl (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is no need to add such a lengthy text to describe the Argentinean position which is already perfectly described as it is. Also Martin you seem to be confusing a couple of things regarding the Argentinian position. There is no dispute about the UK taking the islands by force or about it expelling the Argentinian authorities, this is accepted with no argument. What Wee disputes is the expulsion of "settlers" stating that actually a "garrison" was expelled. The Argentine official position makes no apparent distinction between "settlers" and "garrison" stating simply "expelled the people that had settled there", which can be taken to mean the settlers, the garrison, the authorities or all combined.

There is also no need to "rebut" anything because we are stating the claims by both sides, nothing more. The article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute already deals with this issue in a much lengthier way quoting all kinds of sources. I believe the current version is perfectly fine as it is (well, except for the giant "NPOV disputed" banner...) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked as the Spanish version (I do not read Spanish, but I have studied a little Latin and French, am fluent in Afrikaans, speak passable Dutch and struggle by in German so am aware of changes in inuendo when text is translateed). The Spanish wording for "expelled the people that had settled there" was "expulsó a la población allí establecida" (translated by Google as "expelled population established there"). If the Google translation is authentic, the the word "population" implies everybody. To me the Argentine document has the hallmarks of something that was sloppily drafted to the extent that it is ambiguous as to whether or not, in their view, everybody or just the Argentine authortities (autoridades argentinas) were expelled and also to whether force was used or just threatened. I believe it important that the ambiguity be highlighted, if only to prevent the document being relied on as being 100% reliable. I am happy to shorten the sentence to:

In a lengthy document^{Ref xx} the Argentine governmente's claim is based on the manner in which the United Kingdom took control of the islands in [January] 1833. The document contains a number of contradictions regarding the actual event; in particular whether the British used force to take the islands or just the threat of force and whether the entire population or just the Argentine adminstration were expelled."

Having reread the article, I am happy to delete the Darwin sentence - the Gaucho murders rebuts of the the statement that the entire population was expelled (which is why I include the word "[January]"). Martinvl (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin, there is no confusion about the force part. No actual "physical violence" was used given the overwhelming superiority of the British navy which is not to say the expulsion occurred peacefully (which is already a contradiction) because there was a threat "to use greater force". This is a non-issue and it is not disputed at all (not by Argentina and not by the UK) The current version of the article you wrote is 100% correct given that it states: "...using a threat of "greater force"..." which is 100% accurate. The "threat of greater force" and the "act of force" are the same thing in the official Argentinian position: the threat is the act in itself. There is no need to change or re-write this part because no one disputes it.

As to whether the whole population was expelled or not, that is what Wee disputes saying that only a garrison was expelled. The article currently states "...expelled the Argentine authorities..." which could be expanded to "...expelled the Argentina authorities and the people that had settled there.." to comply even further with the original source as you point out.

Remember that we are stating the claims by the UK and Argentina and we should display them as is because they are official claims by each country. We should not be interpreting these claims nor trying to decide if they are "true" or "false" (or contradictory) since that is not our position as editors. What do you think about this rephrasing of the Argentinian claim?:

"..in 1833 the United Kingdom, using a threat of "greater force", expelled the Argentine authorities and the people that had settled there from the islands..."

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Pray tell, on what basis is the threat of greater force based? What do neutral 3rd party sources have to say on the matter. Again I remind you that we describe debates not engage in them and rather we do not state respective claims by each country but rather how they are described in neutral sources. You do of course realise that the official statement of the Argentine Government claim is a WP:PRIMARY source. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I would've like to vote on this but I see that it's pointless now, as changes have already been introduced to the section. For the record, the distinction between "civilians" and "garrison" is intrinsically British-biased; in fact, I believe it stems from Pascoe & Pepper, which is hardly a neutral source.

The reason why some sources look "contradictory" to some eyes is because they simply disregard that distinction. If you consider that the Spanish settlement (1767-1811) and the British settlement in Port Egmont (1766-1776) had no civilian population (other than those assisting the military personnel), you'll understand that it was not the civilians the element that defined the sovereignty but the authorities and officers dispatched there.

Also, the reason why some sources talk about an "entire" population, disregarding those few who stayed, could be explained in the light that after the Gaucho murders and their capture the Argentine civilians were reduced to zero or not much more than that. Mind you, the Gaucho murders were a consequence of the British seizure, as Capt. Onslow ordered that they would be paid in silver from then on, before departing the islands "and leave to protect it a Union Jack". --Langus (t) 05:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The above comment is seriously misleading. The claim that the settlers were expelled is key to Argentina's modern sovereignty claim. It claims the Argentine settlers were expelled to be replaced by British settlers. It is on this basis that Argentina asserts the Falkland Islanders should not enjoy the right to self-determination, since it is argued they displaced the previous population. This claim was first asserted by Ambassador Ruda in a speech to the UN in 1964.

The claim is somewhat of an example of double think, given Argentina's myths about the legendary Gaucho River but that is what is claimed. I take it you from the comments above you agree it is untrue, so I ask why you seek to suppress the incorporation of other significant opinions in the literature to only present a claim you know to be untrue?

Further the claim this is British biased is false on many counts. It does not originate from Pascoe & Peppers paper of 2009, it has been in many papers before that. Gustafson for example was written in 1988, Cawkell's first volume in 1960, Goebel in 1927. It is the Argentine literature that makes the claim, it is of no importance to the British position, so it does not feature prominently in the British literature. I wouldn't care but the references are right in front of you above, they all clearly predate Pepper and Pascoes paper. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a very simple issue. We are presenting the claims (or two of the most prominent ones at least) by the UK and Argentina. The UK claims A and B while Argentina claims C and D. So what should we do? We present all claims as each country states them. We say "The UK claims A and B and Argentina claims C and D". We are not a body of historians trying to uncover the "truth" behind a ~180 years old incident Wee. If you want to do so go write your own book.

If you wish to "rebut" the Argentinian claim using Gustafson then we should also quote the sources (such as Risman) that back up this claim. It doesn't matter that you think Risman is "contradictory", that's your interpretation and it is a clear breach of WP:OR and WP:SYN. If you can produce a source of some sort that states the Risman book is flawed (like what happened with the Lopez book at RS/N which is why it was finally dismissed as a source) then do so. Otherwise, go write your own book about how Risman is flawed. WP is not the place to present your own research about flawed/neutral historical sources. This point has been made abundantly clear to you throughout the last couple of months.

Furthermore, i we do include sources for and against that Argentinian claim, we should also include the sources that "rebut" and "support" the islanders right to self-determination. This would quickly turn that tiny part of the article into an argumentative monster. There is no need for that since there is a whole article that deals with all of these issues already and it is mentioned at the beginning of that section (ie: Main article: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute)

What you attempt to do Wee is to mention only the sources you believe should be mentioned to "rebut" the Argentinian claim. This is a violation of NPOV by any standards and again you know this.

The current version of the article has only flaw (aside from the giant NPOV disputed banner you left): it only mentions how Argentina claims the authorities were expelled when the original source also mentions "the people that had settled there". That is why I propose the slight amendment:

"..in 1833 the United Kingdom, using a threat of "greater force", expelled the Argentine authorities and the people that had settled there from the islands..."

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment the last time you said exactly the same thing. Trying to discuss content with you is impossible; it was wrong the last time you made it, it is wrong this time. We don't achieve NPOV by simply repeating what either side claims, we describe how competing claims are viewed by neutral 3rd party academic sources.

You constantly misrepresent any argument. I have never stated Risman was flawed, its an excellent piece of research - the way you are using the source is incorrect. Its an example of the abuse of a source by talking one comment out of context in a manner never intended by the original author. On p.300 Risman refers only to the garrison.

I am referring to sources that reflect the balance of opinion in the literature. You can't refute this so we see personal attacks accusing me of misconduct, which of itself is a classic example of Projection Bias in revealing your own motives.

If the British Government were to state an historical "fact" and neutral 3rd party academic sources disputed it, I would be arguing that should be in the article. I oppose simply stating respective positions and instead suggest we follow guidelines suggested by NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wee your constant WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT attitude is really tiresome. As I said, if you wish to present sources for and against each claim (both the British and the Argentinian) then we can do so. I would rather we didn't based on two things: 1- the small section would become a big argumentative section and 2- there is already a whole article that deals with this.

"On p.300 Risman refers only to the garrison" <-- Wee, this is WP:OR and WP:SYN in its clearer form and you know it. This is what Risman says on p.306:

"..Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands.."

This is what Wee says contradicts that statement (written 6 pages earlier on p.300):

"...British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison.."

Wee has been told clearly that if he wishes to dismiss a source based on it not being reliable, then he needs a reliable source to back that claim. He has none. Wee bases his claims on his own WP:OR and WP:SYN which is 100% not acceptable.

I urge anyone reading this to please refer to the original discussion at RS/N about this issue where one of the editors says to Wee after he attempts to discredit Risman as "self-contradictory":

"...Truth is irrelevant, because your truth, and my truth, and the truth of Fred up the road conflict with Jane's truth. We reject editor's prior comprehensions of the truth and demand sourcing. The flaw in your logic is your epistemology, as if you have the capacity as an encyclopaedia editor to make informed judgements about the truth value texts in comparison. You don't have that capacity as an encyclopaedia editor—if you edit on that basis you will eventually be removed from this community. If you wish to edit an encyclopaedia on the basis of the truth in your own mind, go find another project..." Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(emphasis added)

I don't think it can be made any more clear than this.

So once again: if you wish to add sources to that section, we add all neutral sources, not just the ones you deem as "neutral", ok? Risman is not even the only one, as you clearly recall the Self-determination article has 3 sources for this.

It is truly a shame that an article has to stay defiled by an editor who refuses to compromise at any level or work together with other editors in any way. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense, you are the poster child for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. My edits reflect what the sources say, you filibuster discussions to frustrate consensus. You have no argument other than to constantly repeat the same baseless accusation. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In a simple reduction ad absurdum, if we follow your argument we must repeat something from a source, without common sense allowing us to evaluate a source you could claim the Christian church condones adultery citing the Wicked Bible. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No Wee, leaving aside the ridiculousness of your example, in that case what we would/should do is state that "the Wicked Bible claims that the Christian church condones adultery[15]". See what I did there? It's called referencing, there's no WP:OR or WP:SYN going on and furthermore we don't selectively quote a single source to "rebut" or "support" the claim.

Anyway, you've made it abundantly clear at this point that you are not prepared to give an inch in this matter so we'll just have to wait to see what other editors say about this. Until then I guess the article will have to display your lovely banner. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The point of a reduction ad absurdum is to illustrate the fallacy of an argument by showing that taken to its logical conclusion an absurd result ensues. Indeed referencing is precisely what I propose, moreover I don't present a single source but multiple sources to illustrate the weight of opinion in the literature, only in the text do I refer to one. However, in response you have referred to 2, your first , Lopez, was deemed unreliable. Your second supplied by another editor, Risman, doesn't support the claim you ascribe to it. Moreover I am willing to see the text you want, you refuse to allow additional material that reflects the weight of opinion in the literature. So please stop trying to portray other editors as unreasonable when you are being unreasonable. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No Wee, you don't propose referencing (the section is 100% referenced right now), you propose commenting on the Argentinian claim by introducing only the sources you accept as "neutral" to try to "rebut" the Argentinian claim as "false".

Risman does support the claim as was made abundantly clear to you at RS/N. Same with the other two sources: Bulmer[16] and Escudé[17] (another author recommended at the original RS/N which anyone can go and check).

Since you like to keep bringing up the Lopez book (which no one but you keeps mentioning I might add) let me remind you that you were told at that same RS/N that you need a reliable source to dismiss the use of a published book as a source, just like what happened with the Lopez book. Do you have such sources for Risman, Bulmer and Escudé? You and I both know you do not, which is why you keep referring to your own WP:OR and WP:SYN to try to discredit it/them.

I'll make you a deal Wee: what do you say you and I agree to a voluntary 2 months ban on this article? That way we can give the rest of the editors a chance to solve this issue without the both of us clogging up the talk page. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an even simpler solution to clogging up this page, cease the personal attacks and I will not be compelled to defend myself. Address the argument not the person and allow others to comment without haranguing them; above a number of editors comment, you feel compelled to address each one.

Risman does not support the claim, as you yourself have demonstrated. Neither does Bulmer [18] it refers only to the authorities. Neither does Escudé [19] who merely states that Britain seized the islands. I invite other editors to please check for themselves - Gaba there is no need to reply making personal attacks against me of misconduct, if you have confidence that the sources support your claims you will allow people to check for themselves.

Reminding ourself what is the actual claim, Argentina claims the Argentine settlers were expelled to be replaced by British settlers. On the basis of this claim, Argentina denies that the right to self-determination applies as they replaced an Argentine population in 1833. None of those sources support that claim.

Further you claim that it is a British claim that only the garrison was expelled. No, the British claim is that Argentine attempts to settle the Falkland Islands were sporadic and ineffectual. No part of the British claim depends on countering the Argentine claim of an expulsion of the settlement.

On the one hand you wish to allow the Argentine claims used to deny that a self-determination right exists but not comments by neutral 3rd party academics that present a different opinion.

And if we want to boil the claims down to the essentials, Britain's is based on both self-determination of the Falkland Islanders and long term administration. Argentina claims an inheritance from Spain. You falsely claim that if Argentina's claim depends only on an inheritance from Spain because Britain's claim depends on two points, then we can present only one and insist on removing any mention of the self-determination right of the islanders.

So either thrust of your edit seeks to deny this self-determination right exists. On one hand you seek to impose an edit that presents the Argentine argument why it doesn't apply and on the other remove it altogether.

What everyone seems to be forgetting is there are 3 parties to this dispute; namely the British Government, Argentine Government and the Falkland Islanders themselves.

So I propose the following solution:

• An edit noting Britains claims to the islands depends on long term adminstration
• The Falkland Islanders claim the right to self-determination
• Argentina's claim is an inheritance from Spain.

Everyone gets to state the basis of their position, no one's argument is rubbished and every gets to state one reason. What could be wrong with that? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you responded to my proposal to stop clogging the page with an even bigger wall of text than the ones you had written until now. I also see you have not responded to my proposal to a voluntary self-ban on this article to let others users deal with this.

I'll be brief: you need a source to reject Risman, Bulmer and Escudé as reliable sources. You have none. I won't comment anymore on your WP:OR and WP:SYN about the "garrison" because it's clearly pointless. Your problem with the current state of the article is that to you the Argentinian claim is "false" or "wrong" or who knows what and you want the article to show that. You need to drop it Wee. It's a claim and it is sourced as such as I believe Martinvl explains to you below (one more editor trying to get through...)

Once again: we both have said all that needed to be said so will you join me in a voluntary self-ban on this article so as to let other editors deal with this issue without us clogging up the talk page Wee? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Again you misrepresent my comments. I do not reject Risman, Bulmer and Escudé as reliable sources. All are. I simply point out that they don't verify the claim you make. The claim you make fails verification. Now I have pointed this out repeatedly, I invite other editors to verify this for themselves, seeing as I provide an online link for them to do so.

Again, I have to point out, none of my comments are either WP:OR or WP:SYN. These are statements made virtually verbatim in a number of reliable sources. The claim is verified, ie I draw none of my own conclusions. If the Argentine claim is verifiable, then I am sure you will be able to provide a WP:RS that WP:V, and of course it will refer to a reliable WP:PRIMARY source such as an eye witness account for example. I have repeatedly invited you to do so.

Again I have to point out there are a range of opinions in the literature and WP:NPOV requires we reflect the range of opinions. If you will allow my comments to stand without deliberately misrepresenting them, I will have no further need to comment unless asked a question. However, I will not agree to a one sided self-ban where you get to attack me and I'm not allowed to defend myself. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

flogging a dead horse

Gaba, Weecurryman, we have seen what you have to say and this wall of text is very hard to follow now (and is also a bit of a mess format wise). Can we now stick to other peoples views?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I think Wee and I have clogged up the page enough. That's why I reiterate my proposal to Wee for a voluntary mutual 2 months ban on this article to get a little perspective and let other editors manage this. Regards Gaba p (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Somehwere in the maze of text and shown up here, Wee Curry Monster wrote something about the use of the phrase "Greater force". Finding it is like finding a needle in a haystack, so I will respond at the bottom of the overall discussion. If he were to read WP:PRIMARY, he would see "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In this case, the source has been reliably published, and since it is a verbatim quote, there is no interpretation. Therefore the use of this phrase is perfectly OK. Martinvl (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My question was does the comment expressed in such a WP:PRIMARY source reflect the views expressed in WP:SECONDARY sources. I can suggest a few sources, which would dispute the phrase "Greater Force", but I'm sure I would be howled down as selecting sources to dispute the Argentine version of events. Hence, I asked if there were secondary sources to support this phrase. I will merely point out that if you were to compare the ARA Sarandi and HMS Clio, they are comparable in terms of firepower. In addition, the Argentine forces in the islands outnumbered the 8 Royal Marines on HMS Clio. Suffice it to say there was neither "Greater Force", nor the threat of "Greater Force", since all Captain Onslow did was present a request and the Captain of the ARA Sarandi complied. The crucial difference is that 80% of the Argentine crew on the ARA Sarandi were British mercenaries and could not be counted on to attack a British ship. Pinedo contemplated resisting in light of his numerical superiority, he chose not to do so because he couldn't count on his men. I believe this is one of those examples where a WP:PRIMARY source can be misused. Hence, the preference is to not engage in debates but describe them. Please note I am only responding to Martin and hope not to be compelled to comment further. Please note my request as to whether WP:SECONDARY sources reflect the use of this term, we can then move on from there. Further accusations of selecting sources to dispute the Argentine version of events are unhelpful. Lets actually see what the sources say please. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh.. you just won't ever stop the WP:OR and WP:SYN will you? I also see you have no desire of joining me in a voluntary mutual self-ban on the article to give room to other editors to solve this. Here you go Wee, from the Gustafson book you like to use so much (p.26):

"...The superior force of the Clio and Tyne convinced Pinedo that he should not resist. The fact that shots were not fired does not mean force was not used. The most successful use of force is to show it, not actually to fight...."

One would think you knew this since it's right above the quote from Gustafson you use every other two sentences. Anyway, should we not move the goal posts? The issue here is the enormous NPOV disputed banner you left on the article. Since both you and I have commented extensively on this issue, will you agree to stop adding text to this talk page and so will I so as to allow other editors to solve this? We clearly aren't getting anywhere, don't you think it'd be a good idea for both of us to step back for a while? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, all I asked was whether secondary sources supported the claim. HMS Tyne did not go to Port Louis in 1833, there was only the one ship present during the crucial dates. P.26 does of course go on to say, "Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina. Argentines have waxed eloquent about the British use of force in1833. Rhetoric about the islands' history has often been needed to create drama, which has in fact been lacking."

The next line is even more of relevance. 'The myth of the British use of force in 1833 is much more persistent than the memory of the more violent US raid in 1831."

Gustafson is being quoted out of context to create a false impression, notice a recurring theme?

So given subsequent comments does Gustafson support the point? I invite others editors to comment and request you resist the temptation to have the last word. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

All that stuff you quoted after the sentence I presented does not in any way contradict what Gustafson is saying, ie: force was used even if no shots were fired. I have no idea what you think you proved/disproved by quoting the rest of the paragraph.

But wait this is priceless, am I reading you correctly? Are you saying the number one source you use to back up your WP:OR and WP:SYN is actually mistaken about the number of ships present at the time of the incident?? Gaba p (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(Also, I note once again you have refused to accept my offer to let other editors handle this issue by joining me in a self-imposed ban on this article. Care to comment the reason? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC))

Where have I even said any source is infallible? This is why I apply common sense and cross reference multiple sources. This you denounce as wp:or and wp:syn but by the by. I actually suggest multiple sources.

Also Gustafson specifically states the allegation of the British use of force is a myth, why do you continue to claim otherwise? What is also clear is you will not let allow any comment i make to stand in its own merit without you attempting to discredit it. But you expect me to agree to a self-imposed ban that would preclude me responding, then claim I'm unreasonable for not doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Take a close look at this comment Wee: this is me letting you have the last word about Gustafson and everything. I won't dispute anything you just said. Can we agree on a mutual self-imposed ban now so as to let other editors handle this issue? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So basically you continually attack me personally and I have to agree to a ban to stop you? If you want an self-imposed interaction ban fine but I am not going to be hounded off wikipedia by you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok then, let it be noted I offered you countless times to let other editors handle this issue and you refused. Also, the fact that Gustafson can be used to reference the use of force and to reference the not use of force and that you said it is mistaken in a crucial fact has not passed unnoticed. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No it can't, Gustafson specifically states this is an Argentine myth. I didn't say it was mistaken, I merely pointed out HMS Tyne was not present, only HMS Clio. The full quote, not the tiny bit taken out of context, doesn't support the claim. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wee, Gustafson also states verbatim that:

"...The superior force of the Clio and Tyne convinced Pinedo that he should not resist. The fact that shots were not fired does not mean force was not used. The most successful use of force is to show it, not actually to fight...."

(emphasis added)

which clearly indicates that force was used. Also saying "the source is not correct about the number of ships present" along with "the source is not mistaken" is pretty contradictory, don't you think? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina. Argentines have waxed eloquent about the British use of force in 1833. Rhetoric about the islands' history has often been needed to create drama, which has in fact been lacking.
The myth of the British use of force in 1833 is much more persistent than the memory of the more violent US raid in 1831." Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012. Emphasis added to make the point, selective quoting is a disruptive behavious, as is tendentiosly repeating the same point. Take it to one of the boards if you feel my interpretation of the source is incorrect. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"The superior force of the Clio and Tyne convinced Pinedo that he should not resist. The fact that shots were not fired does not mean force was not used. The most successful use of force is to show it, not actually to fight."

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Funny how you complain about "selective quoting" but conveniently forget to quote the part right above that one. The first part of that text clearly states that force was used. If you feel my interpretation of the source is incorrect, we'll meet at RS/N my friend. Just a reminder: last time at RS/N you were told Risman was to be used and you are now acting like that never happened. If you are going to ask advice at a noticeboard it would be good that you follow their recommendations afterwards. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh since we are discussing this point, let me quote Gustafson again, same page:

"...The use of force by the British on the Falklands Islands in 1833 was less dramatic than later Argentina rhetoric has suggested..."

which clearly indicates that force was used though supposedly in a less dramatic fashion than was later commented by Argentina. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see this link for any editor who wishes to judge for themselves. For anyone who can't find the original comment, I merely pointed out that neutral sources didn't support the Argentine claim of the greater use of force or the threat of it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed any editor following this please read p.26 of Gustafson (link in Wee's comment above) to get a clear picture. This link to the original RS/N where Risman's book is recommended is also relevant for anyone who wishes to know where this discussion stems from. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see page 26 (only up to 25). Based on what both of you bring up, Gustafson would seem to fit in perfectly with the "UK counter-argument" part of the proposed improvement. Something along the lines of:

• Political historian Lowell Gustafson agrees that Clio and Tyne's threat of force constitutes its usage, writing that "[t]he most successful use of force is to show it, not actually to fight". However, Gustafson disputes the force's extent, adding that "this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina".

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's great, we could use Carlos Escudé[20] in the "Argentina counter-argument" to source that there was use of force

("..Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right (by the UK)...". Here's a caption of p.26 in case you might want to take a look at it Marshal. Regards. Gaba p (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC) (forgot to sign Gaba p (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC))

Escude would be better in the Argentine position paragraph. The UK position does not base itself on usage of force (or the lack of it), so it would not be possible to "counter-argue" something that is not in the paragraph. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Marshall, I have Gustafson and Risman to hand, if you would like Risman or elements of Gustafson let me know. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wee, I think that can come in handy if problems arise with the sandbox proposals. I have made a sandbox for the section here: User:MarshalN20/sandbox. Everyone in the discussion, please feel free to edit it. However, when you edit the page, please revert it and use the diffs you create to discuss your proposed changes in the talk page (that is, unless you think your edit is not controversial).

I have focused on the brief history part of it. I only included the truly major events.

I would preffer that the history section is left as it currently stands in the sandbox, unless I missed something that is absolutely important. Given that the main topic of discussion now are the different claims, it would be best if all of you focused your intellect on those sub-sections.

Finally, please do remember that those sub-sections will eventually be merged into one single section (with no sub-headings). So always aim to go straight to the point. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A good start, I've added a few pieces I feel you missed. The text is growing and may benefit from paring down a little. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting the whole section

I propose we take this time to come up with a sandbox for the section and work to improve it without disrupting the article. This has worked the last few times we have done it, all with positive results. I also propose that the improved section follows this structure:

1. First paragraph: Brief history of the dispute (perhaps broken up into two paragraphs, one for pre-War and the other for post-War).
2. Second paragraph: UK point of view and Argentine counter-arguments.
3. Third paragraph: Argentine point of view and UK counter-arguments.
4. Fourth paragraph: What the Falkland Islanders think about the dispute.

That way, we would have a good summary of the dispute where all relevant points are placed and the reader ends well-informed (with further details and information available in the main article). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

An eminently sensible suggestion. If I may add, we shouldn't be using the WP:PRIMARY source where the three parties state their case, rather we should be using WP:SECONDARY sources that describe them from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with MarshalN20. If I may point out that I believe the suggestion by Wee is ridiculous, how can we not use the official source for a claim when stating specifically such claim? Of course I agree to the use of WP:SECONDARY sources to put claims into context (Gustafson, Risman, Cawkell, Escudé, Bulmer, Laver, etc..) but the claims themselves should be taken from the official position by each side. We should also be very brief with the islanders part as to not give undue weight to a party which is not recognized by one of the others (Argentina) as actually having any saying in this dispute (which is not a minor detail) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV suggests the use of secondary sources to describe in a neutral manner the position of respective parties, will you please stop the personal attacks and read a little policy first. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wee there is not a single personal attack in my previous edit, I just commented that I think you proposal to disregard the official sources for the claims when it comes to sourcing such claims is ridiculous. Please take it as a comment on your suggested edit, not a comment on your person because that's what it is. Would you point me to which policy of WP:NPOV you think am I forgetting when I say we should use both the original sources for the claims and secondary sources too to give context to such claims? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Far from being ridiculous, it is the recommended approach to follow on wikipedia. We don't simply state what either side claims, rather we report on how they are viewed by neutral 3rd party sources. Take it to WP:NPOVN if you don't believe me, rather than indulging in your continued disruptive habit of always having the WP:LASTWORD. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy-paste from last comment (you must have missed my question?): Would you point me to which policy of WP:NPOV you think am I forgetting when I say we should use both the original sources for the claims and secondary sources too to give context to such claims? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

John Byron image

I do not understand why Byron's image is in the article. It doesn't help clarify anything in the text. It's just as irrelevant as if the article had the Louis Antoine de Bougainville and Luis Vernet images. Therefore, I propose its removal.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why as he founded one of the first settlements as noted in the text, I would have no objection if you were to suggest adding Bougainville's image, as I would venture to suggest additional images would help. Nor do I object to Vernet's being added. I nonetheless don't understand why you picked that one out of many? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MarshalN20 that the image doesn't add to or clarify the text, but also feel an image there makes the article look a bit better (although perhaps it should be left aligned so it doesn't get displaced by the infobox). Is there a picture (painting, I assume) of the actual settlement at that time? CMD (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I mention the Byron image since it's one of the "strange" ones in the article. I honestly do not gain any better understanding about the islands from looking at him. As CMD suggests, a better image would be a picture of the early settlement, or the image of some notable activity (historic) taking place in the islands.

Other "strange" images include: The Brown-Kirchner image in "After the Falklands War" and the Argentine POW image in "Falklands War and its Aftermath" (although I do remember we had a discussion about the latter some time ago). I plan to discuss the Brown-Kirchner image after we find a replacement to the Byron image. All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are some good historic images:

• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]

I like the visual sense of motion many of them provide.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

View of Port Louis, probably 1838 or 1839.

I suggest that the picture of Byron be replaced by the picture on the left (One of the pictures in the above list) and that the new picture be inserted on the left-hand side so that the ship is "sailing into" to the page (normal journalistic practice) next to the text "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted ...".

References

This picture will also emphasise that how few people were living in the Falklands at the time (A few years earlier Darwin counted 24 - fewer than the number who live in the close where I live). Martinvl (talk)

Great, I didn't know they existed but back to my point, why not add additional images? It would improve the visual impact of the article. Good idea to add the Lowcay picture rather than the Battle of the Falkland Islands picture but do we need to remove others? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added the photo, but not removed anything. I feel that maybe the Byron photo should be moved for asthetic reasons. Perhaps it could be moved down a little and replace the "Welcome to Stanley" picture or moved to the left-hand side (where Byron will be looking away from, not towards the text). May I [modestly?] suggest that readers have a quick look at how I used pictures in the artcile Mesures usuelles.

Looking further down the artcile, I was not very happy with the picture of the liner and the fishing vessel. If it were not for the caption, I would not have known what I was looking at. Alternatives are this picture, or a picture of a cruisde lioner that is known to have gone to the the Falkands. (Look at the travel section of a newspare, see that the Queen Mary makews trips to the Falkalnds and add a picture of the QUeen Mary in Southampton Docks. We must however be carfeful that pictures do not create white space.

Martinvl (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the Las Malvinas son Argentinas photo has to be ripe for removal, its an overtly political symbol and better images exist to illustrate the sovereignty dispute than the symbolism embedded there. Its in the article on the sovereignty dispute anyway. Nauseating as it is the picture of the two politicians should suffice. That would create space for more images illustrating the islands and their history. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the cruise liner change. That image added less to the article than John Byron did. We could add additional images as long as we still comply with WP:MOSIMAGES, including its requirement on text sandwiching. We should probably also discuss each image individually, to lessen confusion. CMD (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi CMD. Not sure that the old image is the best one. Please have a look at the image alongside WP:IRELEV to see where I am coming from. The main thing in the image that I installed was a picture of a cruise liner. The main thing in the picture that you restored was the rocks on the shoreline. Martinvl (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's probably not the best image, but the rocks in that photo are rocks from the Falkland Islands. There could of course be a better image, but I don't think a photo of a cruise liner is it. Seeing a cruise liner doesn't create a clearer picture of anything in the article in the minds of the readers. Perhaps two ships in the waters of Port William might. CMD (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A picture of two ships in Port William would certinly be better if a quality picture exists. It it does not excist, then we need to compromise. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the Port William location in the foreground of the present picture (with the two ships in the background) is exactly the site of the planned new deepwater port of the Falklands. Apcbg (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If we can cite this information, then that would certainly make the image relevant.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - WP:IRELEV is quite emphatic - Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used. I would go a step further - poor images are like poor grammar - to be avoided. That is the reason why I introduced the picture of the cruise liner in the first place. Everybody could see that it was a cruise liner, the caption explained why there was a picture of a cruise liner. Martinvl (talk)

I think we should be wary of introducing new citations into captions. Images are supposed to support the text, and having a citation there is a strong indication that the image is instead adding new information. CMD (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point about introducing new citations into imags. The remedy for this woudl have been to introduce the same citation into the text in an appropriate way. I have made such an addition to the text and labelled the citation so that the same citation can be used in the caption of the image. Martinvl (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I haved reinstated th eimage of the cruise liner, having taken on board (on pun intended) comments about the introduction of citations from image captions. The caption now shares a citation with the text.

Sorry mate but I've removed it, as an image its is only obliquely related to the topic and so I don't feel it belongs in the article for that reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Queen in infobox

I think it's pretty obvious that Elizabeth II is (as far as the UK is concerned) the sovereign of the Falkland Islands, and should be included in the info box. Much like, eg, Wales. Khendon (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It is, but the Falklands are British territory, not an independent state in its own right. Thus, it doesn't have a monarch, let alone a head of state. There is no 'queen of the Falkland Islands', Just like there's no 'President of French Guiana' or 'President of Virginia' or 'Queen of Wales'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It makes more sense to discuss this in one place rather than several (sorry, my fault for starting the discussion in two places) - Talk:British Overseas Territories seems as good as anywhere? Khendon (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. That seems sensible :-)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Units of Measure and NPOV

In order to promote a WP:NPOV, I propose that the following should be the keystone to choice of units:

Given that Argentina has laid claim to the Falkland Islands, care should be taken that all expressions, including the use of units of measure should be written "... as far as possible without bias". Where units of measure exist that are commonplace in both the United Kingdom and in Argentina, such units of measure should be used in preference to units of measure that are peculiar to either the United Kingdom or Argentina.

Is this a reasonable proposal? Martinvl (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much sense, sorry. Would the use of UK units (based on the fact that the current inhabitants are British) imply support for the view that the UK is legally and morally justified in its control? I just don't see how. Khendon (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If User:Khendon looks at the article Bermuda (an article to which he has made contributions), he will see that that in some cases metric units take precedence (land area), in others imperial units take precedence (distance from the American continent). In contrast to Bermuda, there has been a long-running battle at to whether we should be using metric or imperial units in the Falkland Islands article. There has been a long If he goes to a British newsstand and looks at the Economist, metric units take precedence, if he looks at the Daily Mail, imperial units take precedence, if he looks at the structure plan for his local authority at the public library, he will see metric units and likewise if he looks at revision notes for the schools GCSE and A Level geography he will again see that metric units take precedence. However the speed limits are given only in mph.

What I am asking is that we use metric units rather than imperial units in any area where metric units are used as a matter of course in the United Kingdom – in that way we preserve a neutral position and cannot be accused of "Argie-baiting" (to use a Daily Mail type expression). Martinvl (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we not use the units of measure that the Falkland Islanders use?Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been argued in the past - I have only found one reference to the units that are used by the Falkland Islandsers - para 4.7 of this paper requries the use of metric units. Can you find any other refernces to give us guidance? The case against this argument is that Falkland Islanders are not the main readers of the artcile - over the last 30 days the article received an average of 2,400 hits a day - nearly one per for each man, woman and child living on the islands. Martinvl (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that as this mater is in dispute (as with language) we go with the people who use them: reference 1, reference 2 So both seem to be in use.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of a few high quality references from the Falkland islands (or commissioned by Falkland ISland sources) that I have used in various Falkland Island articles:

• Fisheries bulletin
• oil-related geological information Also see its daughter pages
• information and its daughter pages.
• The Wool Press The recipe pg 18 is also metric.
• 2010-2011 farming statistics
• State of the environment report 2008

Metric units are the dominant units used in all these reports, though there is the occcasional reference to imperial units. Other high quality references that I have used include

• Climate of the Sub-Antarctic islands

This too uses metric units with the exception of altitude (which is in feet due to its links wioth aviation). Martinvl (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there any quality references that originate from the Falkland Islands where imperial units are the dominant units in use? If so, can somebody identify them. I know about the use of miles per hour. Martinvl (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hint: The goal is to make the whole encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use. Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood, and take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers. WP:MOSNUM. --Langus (t) 18:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM suggests that we should use UK-style units. All Martin's sources are irrelevant because they don't refer to the use of units but merely happen to use units. This is a common trick of Martin's and constitutes yet another attempt to game the system in order to force metrication here.

Another: when he says "what I am asking is that we use metric units rather than imperial units in any area where metric units are used as a matter of course in the United Kingdom", what he actually means is that we should metricate completely. You see, Martin argues miles are not used as a matter of course in the United Kingdom. He argues that we all use kilometres really, and presumably just put miles on the roadsigns to confuse foreigner. I'm not exaggerating: he has argued in the past that all British people measure distances as the crow flies in kilometres, but distances along roads in miles. If you are British, you will know that this is total rubbish.

The current rules on units are expressed at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. You will see that this does little more than restate the WP:MOSNUM for British articles. Additional provisions are included only to prevent gaming. The fact is, in the common meaning of the words, we do "use metric units rather than imperial units in any area where metric units are used as a matter of course in the United Kingdom". And imperial units where imperial units are used as a matter of course in the United Kingdom. But you can put your house on the fact that Martin's idea of those words is different from the common meaning of the words. We need the anti-gaming provisions because when dealing with Martin - or Michael Glass - on the issue of units, you have to make sure that even the blindingly obvious is spelt out. Any potential or perceived chink or perceived loophole will be used to push for full metrication. And when I say that, bear in mind that I say it with years of experience. Kahastok talk 18:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok wrote "suggests that we should use UK-style units". What WP:MOSNUM really says is "In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally [my emphasis] a metric unit (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts ...". My copy of the Oxford COncise Dictionary defines the word "Generally" as "For the most part, extensively; in a general sense, without regard to particulars,not specially; as a general rulle, commonly". I do not see how he equates this definition with his analysis "we should use". Since his understanding of the word "generally" appears to be so wildly different to mine, would he be good enough to tell me which dictionary he is using?

Khastok is also under a misapprehension that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS expresses the current rules. It does not and never has - it expresses what he would like the rules to be. It has never had a consensus - at best it has had two supporters and two opponents - ie, not even a majority support. If it did express the current rules, why is he so anxious that it is not moved into WP:MOS space. What is he hiding? What is he scared of?

Martinvl (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And at least two more attempts to game the system in that one. First, trying to use the word "generally" to wriggle your way out of following WP:MOSNUM, by claiming that it does not express a preference for any set of units when anyone reading the guideline will see that it does. Of course, even if it didn't, that would not be an excuse to mass-convert this topic, which would violate both the letter and spirit of WP:MOSNUM. Second, trying to claim that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is not consensus: if it wasn't enough that it has been accepted as consensus for two and a half years (and it is), we might note that you yourself have acknowledged it as the current consensus since it was adopted and recommended that users follow it "to the letter". You were treating it as the standing consensus as recently as yesterday.

The insinuations against my character would appear say a lot more about how you intend to carry on here, most of it (it has to be said) not good. I've told you why I oppose your proposal clearly, frankly and in detail. I've said that I'm concerned about your current behaviour. Given how much damage you managed to do last time - and a repeat would see no possible improvement to this topic this side of the next World Cup - everyone else should be concerned about your current behaviour as well. Kahastok talk 23:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly am I insinuating about your character? If two people out of four agree something and two oppose it, there is no consensus. Therefore the statement "The current rules on units are expressed at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS" is a misrepresentation of the truth. End of story. Martinvl (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When something has been accepted for two and a half years, it has consensus. The two editors who disagreed at the time have both accepted it as consensus since. Including you. This is pure gaming. Kahastok talk 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The various articles related to Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha mainly use metric, with temperatures secondarily in Fahrenheit. Gibraltar gives units in metric first, as do other articles on British Overseas Territories. Why would this territory be different? Which system is taught primarily in its schools? Jonathunder (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the FAlkland Islands school syllabus is "largely based on the National Curriculum", that 16 year-old pupils sit the English GCSE exams (Cambridge board), that special arrangements exist for FI students over the age of 16 to continue their education in England is indicative that metric units are the principal units used in Falkland Island's schools. (Apart from a small topic about unit conversion in maths, the National Curriculum and GCSE use metric units throughout). Martinvl (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so this article should follow the practice on the other British Overseas Territories articles in using metric. Jonathunder (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it should follow the manual of style and the local consensus - in other words, the rules that we have set up to deal with precisely this question. We should not be encouraging people to randomly change units for no reason other than style - WP:MOSNUM is entirely uneqivocal in saying that this is not allowed. The units used in schools are only relevant if they happen to coincide with common usage and with the rules that apply. They do not in all cases because (and this will, judging by past arguments, astound Martin) people do not simply forget everything that happens as soon as the school day finishes. People learn things outside the classroom as well as inside it. Kahastok talk 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, that makes no sense at all! You've established that the Falkland Islands follow similar rules to the rest of the UK; surely the obvious implication is that it should follow similar conventions to (say) United Kingdom Khendon (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is to actually follow the manual of style as expressed through the long-standing consensus that we have adopted. The fact that other non-compliant stuff exists doesn't mean that we should also make this article non-compliant. The fact that Martin has suddenly decided that he has the power to announce that our long-standing consensus - that he has previously accepted - does not exist does not make it so. Kahastok talk 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• In response to Kahastok:

Let me reiterate - there is no "long-standing consensus that we have adopted" and there never has been. Two people supported th epage that you wrtote and two opposed it in, other words a two-two split. That is not a majority vote. Please stop peddling the myth that there was a consensus because THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS.

• In response to Khendon

This is not really a big deal. WP:MOSNUM states "In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts ...". I have checked the units of measure that came first in a number of similar "UK-related" Wikipedia articles. In order to avoid cherry-picking and also to keep the lists as short as possible, I chose sets of articles and looked at all articles in the set concerend. My findings were:

British Overseas Territories

• Akrotiri and Dhekelia - all metric
• Anguilla - all metric
• Bermuda - mainly metric
• British Antarctic Territory - partially metric
• British Indian Ocean Territory - all metric
• British Virgin Islands - all metric
• Cayman Islands - all metric
• Falkland Islands - all imperial
• Gibraltar - all metric
• Montserrat - mainly metric (aviation hieghts imperial)
• Pitcairn Islands - metric
• Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha - mainly metric
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - mainly metric
• Turks and Caicos Islands - metric

Islands off UK coast

• Jersey - metric
• Guernsey - metric
• Isle of Man - metric
• Hebrides - GA - metric
• Orkney - GA -metric
• Shetland - GA - metric
• Isles of Scilly - metric
• Isle of Arran - GA - metric
• Isle of Wight - mainly imperial

United Kingdom - mainly metric

• England - GA - metric
• Scotland - GA - metric
• Wales - GA - mainly metric
• Northern Ireland - GA - mainly metric

As can be seen, the Falkland Islands and the Isle of Wight are the two "odd men out". The general trend has been that in most of these artciles, geographical measurements are quoted in metric units while in some articles, transportation measurements are given in meric units and in others, are given in imperial units.

Martinvl (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's get the facts here. In the discussion concerned, there was one objector whose sole argument was that the change would not be carried through in good faith. You did not object in that discussion. You commented but did not explicitly object. Anyone can see this discussion - it's currently the first thing at WT:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units. The change was carried through in good faith.

Once done, no further discussion resulted. Days turned into weeks. Weeks turned into months. Months turned into years. You come along two and a half years later claiming that the rule doesn't apply based on events of July 2010. That horse would have bolted by now even if we couldn't demonstrate that both you and the person who dissented from had agreed in March 2011 that FALKLANDSUNITS was indeed consensus.

I repeat. You are now claiming that there was never a consensus for FALKLANDSUNITS based on events of July 2010. And yet I have already shown a diff of you agreeing that FALKLANDSUNITS was consensus in March 2011 and telling users to follow it.

This is a clear case of an editor attempting to game the system. Read the sections on bad faith negotiating, stonewalling, and attempting to impose your own standards over the standards of the community. Those descriptions and others on that list describe well your conduct here.

Let's talk about the next bit. You go through a massive list of articles assigning them as metric or imperial. You claim this article to be purely imperial. I find it difficult to believe that this is in good faith because you know perfectly well that it is not purely imperial. It is mixed, according to FALKLANDSUNITS.

I note that a look through your edit history will demonstrate that the reason why many of these articles are metric are because you put them that way, even where this meant clearly and directly going against WP:UNITS and the principle that you should not change even between optional styles (which you have claimed these to be) without a good reason unrelated to style. WP:UNITS would actually suggest that it is those articles that you have converted to kilometres that should be switched back, because miles are clearly preferred for distance in a UK context.

Oh, and finally, it's worth reminding everyone that the consensus before FALKLANDSUNITS was adopted was actually for imperial units first universally. Which would mean converting significant parts of this article - and the rest of the topic - away from the metric system. If FALKLANDSUNITS didn't have consensus, then that would be the situation we would be going back to. Kahastok talk 23:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok wrote "I note that a look through your edit history will demonstrate that the reason why many of these articles are metric are because you put them that way, ...". If he had taken the trouble to look at what really happened (30 November and 1 December), he would have seen that I was reverting a change made by User:Ohconfucius the previous day and that it was OhConfucius who was playing the system in response to a discussion on the MOSNUM Talk page, not me. A further investigation will show that within a few minutes of OhConfucius making those changes, he made similar changes in the article Scotland which were reverted by another editor even before I reverted the England changes (12:57 and 18:18 on 30 November 2012). In short, if Kahastok's previous posting were part of as legal testimony, it would be dismissed in toto on grounds that the witness was unreliable are totally worhtless. Martinvl (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

So, the fact that you object to articles actually following WP:UNITS means that my "previous comments are totally worthless", even when for the most part they didn't even discuss that point? That says a lot as well. Kahastok talk 20:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased the statement. Martinvl (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And it still doesn't apply to me any more than it does to you, given that you falsely claimed that this article is entirely imperial-first. You have been arguing this point for far too long for us to assume that you are not aware of the metric usages in this article. And if the best you can say is that you converted that article to metric after a MOSNUM regular tried to make it actually follow the rules that we are supposed to be applying, then the point still stands. It would not be metric-first if you hadn't switched it to metric-first. Kahastok talk 18:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but this argument is silly. This is not the United States. Falklands use metric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellers & Tinkers (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Travellers & Tinkers,

Thank you for your comments. May I also compliment you on the photographs of the Falkland Islands on your user page which I understand you took earlier this year.

Martinvl (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed its a stupid argument. But its not imperial v metric, we know that the Falklands are mainly metric. What we suggest is a small subset have imperial first, eg miles for distance or speed, reflecting local use of units. Martin and Michael won't even accept that a small number of examples have the unit order reversed. What is really stupid is they've been campaigning for years on Falklands topics to have this removed and they have tried all ways to do it. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And it's worth mentioning that such a small subset accords with our own rules, both in the project-wide manual of style and our own local rules for Falklands articles. Kahastok talk 18:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)