Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Perminant US presence?

The table of perminant settlement list the US, did the US ever have a perminant settlement? Also the US never exercised control, it was a raid and no more. I would susgest remoivinig the US from the list of perminant settlemants and the list of effective control (the American captain declared the Islands free of government, not under US government).Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not a table of settlement, it identifies who was in de facto control. The US held the islands for over a month during the Lexington raid. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Falklands.permanence.png, also is ther a source for the claim the Islands were held for a month by the US? Sis the US maintian a settlemant?Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy to see that graphic removed, I never liked it. As regards settlement there were regular temporary settlements established by British, French and American whalers. As regards the claim the islands were held for a month, take your pick from Goebbels, Destefani, Cawkell or Strange. Its fairly well known the Lexington stayed for a long time. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is OR, you have to have a source saying that the US exercised defacto control, not that there was a US warship based there.Slatersteven (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, it was not based there - the settlement was under military occupation and de facto control of the USN. [1][2] Would you suggest it is WP:OR to claim Argentina controlled the Falkland Islands during its occupation? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I see no evidance in your two sources that there was any occupation by the lexington. To be under occupation there would have to have been a perminant preseance, not one raid. In fact one of your sources makes it clear that the Lexginton in fact left Gauchos and other cowboys on the Falklands. Everything I have read inbdicates it was nothing more then thyat, a single raid.Slatersteven (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

They were there a month. What do you mean by a single raid for starters? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is that the two sources you have provided (plus what I have read) does not say they were there a month, it says they made a single raid and that is all. In fact there is reason to belive the enitre 'occupation' was no more then an hour http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cNKtX4mYVZUC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=how+long+was+the+lexington+in+the+falklands&source=bl&ots=i9zblZOqBW&sig=rdThNV6TRtXgbbABML4BWHDVTmM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s2dNT57QNoWk0QXiyZieBQ&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=how%20long%20was%20the%20lexington%20in%20the%20falklands&f=false .Slatersteven (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, this says they were occupying the falklands for nearly a month http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dxpOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA144&dq=how+long+was+the+lexington+in+the+falklands&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0GhNT5eGHIiu0QXY16CeBQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=how%20long%20was%20the%20lexington%20in%20the%20falklands&f=false.Slatersteven (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've put back the timeline with a different caption that I hope will satisfy you. Regards. --Langus (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, the problem I have is the graphic is visually rather biased toward the British position. I've always thought it gave undue prominence to it by the rather obviously large bar in the UK's favour. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To add, my reason for removing it boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE, so I won't object if you put it back. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like it very much :) I appreciate the gesture of putting it back. I believe it's very valuable, as it presents in a blink of an eye a summary of lots of info, that helps the reader to better grasp the whole picture. I don't believe it to be supportive of either claim, as it presents a lot of different facts that are empathized by one or the other POV: the long and successful British establishment, the French colonization, the prevalence of the Spanish settlement after British withdrawal, etc.

I really enjoy charts and computer graphics: they help me a lot.

Cheers! --Langus (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

For a new approach to the sovereignty issue

The current version of the article puts forward a chronological view of the dispute, very lineal. First the colonial era, then the 1820's and 1830's events, then the negotiations in the 70s, the war, etc. In every phase of the relate are mixed allusions to treaties, uses of force, abandonments, etc. In fact, the article could be confused with some kind of "History of the Islands".

Although the sovereignty dispute is a legal one, the article lacks a systematic approach to the sovereignty issue from a legal perspective. The idea of "sovereignty" isn't defined, just not in a short sentence. In the course of time, meanwhile 500 years, the international law has changed radically, but this is adressed nowhere in the article. Concepts like use of force, Decolonisation, cession, self-determination aren't explained to the reader in order to improve the comprehension of the matter. A easy wikilink doesn't serve to understand the dispute.

The differences between the Spanish empire (or Viceroyalty of the River Plate), the United Provinces of the River Plate, the city of Buenos Aires and Argentina or the differences between the Falklands, the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is unknown for the reader, who is abandonned under a lot of dates, names, places and events without a logical structure.

I propose to change the structure of the article towards a legal view of the theme. The article has to explain briefly the issues enumerated above in a legal plan: occupation of terra nullius, Accretion, Cession, Prescription, discovery. The historical data should be used (only) as documentary evidence for one or the other side. To repeat the history of the Falklands again doesn't make sense.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 00:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have thought of something similar in the past but it is a bit of a minefield. Explaining the legal concepts is one thing, however, it needs to be very carefully done to avoid accusations of rubbishing one claim or the other. Historical data and significant events should remain IMHO but we can look at restructuring. Might I suggest a sandpit to work through the changes before it goes into the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done some work about this undertaking and it isn't so easy. My first idea was an article with only 4 or 5 sections: 1)Discovery and settlements France-UK-Spain-Argentina 2)Cessions France-Spain-Argentina 3)Prescriptions British-Spain-Argentina 4)Self-determination and /or Decolonization. Most of the essays in internet are structured in this way.

The problem is that they assume a (reader's) cabal knowledge of the history of the islands. The article can't explain, for example, the pros, contras and consequences of the Spain-Argentina cession without dates, world situation, background, etc. The sole mention of legal stuff explains nothing.

In order to overcome the obstacle, I remembered Pfainuk words about a more strict chronological report of the cases and came to a TOC:

1 The legal frame of the dispute

2 The Falkland Islands case

2.1 Discovered but not settled

2.2 Settlements

2.3 First cession: France to Spain

2.4 Second cession: Spain to Argentina

2.5 The turmoil years

2.6 From 1834 to 1850

2.7 From 1850 to 1888

2.8 From 1888 to 1940s

2.9 From the 1940s to the 1970s

2.10 The negotiations

2.11 From the war

3 The South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands case

Of course I separated the cases FI and SG+SSI. They are different. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see why you've done it but I can see issues raised by other parties. I can see problems with Argentine editors claiming this is favouring British claims. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

How's that? Speaking for myself, I'm open to this change, although I can't say I'm fully convinced yet. The TOC does looks good. --Langus (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Reason for rv

I performed two minor edits to the article: 1- a 'citation needed' tag to the claim "France has been particularly supportive of the British position." and 2- Uruguay's position supporting Argentina's claim as stated here: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/87911/malvinas-uruguays-mujica-shows-solidarity-with-argentina quoting:

Uruguayan President issued an official statement today ratifying the country’s position regarding recent developments on the Argentine - United Kingdom conflict over Malvinas Islands. (...) "We have repeatedly supported Argentina on its Malvinas Islands claim,” he explained.

I'd like to know why this minor edits were removed twice by Pfainuk and Wee Curry Monster.

Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Pfainuk gave his own reason, its in the edit history. My reason for reverting was you claimed he didn't explain it, well he did, its in the edit history. Deal with the revert rather than claiming it was for no reason - and I would imagine it can easily be resolcved. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's Pfainuk's reason: "Pfainuk (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,579 bytes) (-563)‎ . . (rvt POV and addition of Uruguay (we don't need to list every supporter of each side individually)" My particular problems with that statement are: 1-It doesn't explain why he also removed the 'citation needed' tag from France position; 2-I disagree with not showing all supporters of each side, it's important information regarding the international view of the issue. Can he give a better reason not to add Uruguay other than his own sense of it being irrelevant? Gaba p (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Take it up with him. He might not have noticed this discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We could have a gigantic list, giving details of each country in the world and detailing the statements that they have ever made on the subject. But it would take up most of the article, and would add very little to the reader's understanding of the dispute. In a lot of cases, support is claimed by one or both sides because the third party government concerned doesn't give two hoots about the whole thing and wanted to avoid a diplomatic disagreement. When it comes down to it, we should be summarising the situation, avoiding putting masses of detail and only giving examples that are of clear and direct relevance. Listing every supporter of each side fails to do that. Pfainuk talk 18:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So you think the international position is worth nothing? Why mention any other country then? "Would add very little to the reader's understanding of the dispute" I disagree. If 90% of the world supported one position over the other, don't you think this would constitute relevant information? "In a lot of cases, support is claimed by one or both sides because the third party government concerned doesn't give two hoots about the whole thing and wanted to avoid a diplomatic disagreement" can you back this claim with anything other then your own ideas of how governments work? A list of every supporter of each side gives a clear picture of the world's position IMO. Also, why remove the 'citation needed' tag on France? I actually couldn't come up with any article stating France's position so I wouldn't say it's an obvious statement. If you can find one please add it, otherwise I'll add the tag, ok? Gaba p (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Would have to agree, claims have to be backed up by RS, so if no RS say that France had been "particularly supportive of the British position" then we cannot claim that. If 90% of countries back seething we can say "90% of countries support it" but we don't list each countrySlatersteven (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we ought to consider that the revert concerned was this. (I also reverted standard POV stuff from an IP at the same time).

The idea that every country in the world has a strong and hardened view on every dispute in the world is quite surprisingly naïve. There are plenty of cases internationally where support for one side or other is offered up to the highest bidder and can change quite rapidly (you might take recognition China and Taiwan in the South Pacific as an example). In this case, there are several countries that have - within the space of a few weeks - signed up both to the principle that the Falkland Islanders have a right to self-determination, and the principle that they do not have a right to self-determination. This does not indicate that these governments are deeply passionate about this dispute.

We might also note that there is a difference in approach. Because Argentina wants a change in status, Argentina feels the need to increase the international profile of the dispute. Britain would be perfectly happy for it to be completely ignored internationally because that can be taken as implicitly accepting the status quo. Campaigning for people to bring it up could be taken as implying that Argentina has a case, which Britain does not accept. As such, Argentina is likely to be more forward in soliciting support.

A list of countries with their positions would make up a large majority of article and for the most part would give massive undue weight to countries that are simply irrelevant to the dispute. For the same reason, saying 90% of countries support something would be potentially misleading even if sourceable (and I doubt any figure is in this case). I don't think too many Bhutanese are likely to be too offended if I suggest that their country's (probably non-existent) position on this is probably not as important to the dispute as, for example, Chile's or the USA's.

You also risk suggesting black and white when what there is is mostly grey. If, say, Bhutan makes a statement, then that does not imply a strong position, or one that cannot change. This is why we got rid of the maps that attempted to do this: it was simply impossible to do it without misleading the reader about some of the nuances. Pfainuk talk 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A claim "90% of countries support xxx" is almost impossible to reference, that's why I think we need to list all positions. Also, as Pnainuk puts it, not all countries' position is equally important/relevant so hiding positions behind a percentage would be misleading. But Pfainuk's position appears to be to just flat out disregard any international support (to any side). That's just unacceptable. The world's position on the issue does matter and can't be dismissed because it would take too much space or because he feels governments change their minds too often. If a country clearly supports any side, how is that not important information??

I'll go ahead and add the 'citation needed' tag to France. If nobody can come up with a reference in a couple of weeks, I'll remove the sentence entirely.Gaba p (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll save you the bother, I'm surprised you found it difficult to find a cite. France's support for the UK is well noted. Pfainuk gives a well argued case, I would suggest you respond to it rather than resorting to an ad hominem attack. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The specific page from the ebook you reference (166) is not available for preview, can you provide another reference please? According to this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books "A link to a specific page in a Google Books should only be added if the book is available for preview". If it is as well noted as you say then it shouldn't be difficult to find a reference to a publicly available online article, right? How should we resolve the country-listing issue? Because I think the international position on the matter is a very important piece of information. Also, could you please cite which part of my comment you took as an ad hominem attack on Pfainuk? I'm surprised by this accusation.Gaba p (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirment for surces to be avialible online.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, there is no requirement for a source to be online. I am not required to provide another cite. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you are right, offline sources are accepted (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources) so I guess that one will do. I just thought that the topic being as well noted as you said, it shouldn't prove too hard for you to come up with a more available (ie: online) source. Anyway, that leaves us with two topics to be resolved: 1-The international position on the matter which I say should be expanded maybe even to it's own article (if the length of it is the problem) and 2-my ad hominem attack on Pfainuk which Wee Curry Monster accused me of a couple of comments ago but never did tell me specifically where I could find it. Regards.Gaba p (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So nothing to say Wee? You just make accusations and then never bother to back them up with any kind of evidence?Gaba p (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387576/How-France-helped-us-win-Falklands-war-by-John-Nott.html

Obama and Cameron

Regarding this recent inclusion:

1. Obama didn't publicly supported the status quo, as the text implies: David Cameron claims he does. In any case, this should be properly attributed to him;
2. Even if presented correctly, I have serious doubts about this failing WP:NOT#NEWS. About nine months ago, Hillary Clinton's repeated calls for talks were rejected for inclusion on the grounds of not being relevant enough to show a change in US policy. If that's the case then Obama and Cameron's private meeting certainly doesn't show a shift either. Citing Pfainuk: "this section should describe long-term trends in policy, not individual instances of votes". --Langus (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I rather agree. I don't see that this represents sufficient evidence of a change in long-term US policy - particularly since it seems to be based on interpretation by the Telegraph (the New York Times does not make the same interpretation).

We do actually discuss the US position - but under the subheading, so away from most of the other countries that are noted individually. I think it may be useful to reorganise this section somewhat to remove the subheading and put all the countries we discuss particularly together. I'd remove a couple of those we have (there doesn't seem much point in mentioning Mexico and we can replace it with a more relevant state if needed). Kahastok talk 09:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

De jure and de facto

"De jure" means by law, so whose law applies here - British, Argentine or International? International law has never been tested in a court and as both Britian and the Argentine claim the Falklands, the statement that Britain has exercised "de jure" control over the Falklands is WP:NOP. Best to leave it out. Britain certainly exercises de facto control. Martinvl (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"whose law applies here" — exclusively Falklands Law, a variety of British law. Absolutely, that is the law that applies on the Islands. No other law does. International Law has a different sphere of application, it is no substitute for national law and national sovereignty; there is no international sovereignty either. Apcbg (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And fpor a brief period in 1982 Argentinaian law applied there. Sorry De-facto seems a reasonalbe compromise to a disputed claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Between 1939 & 1944 German law applied to large parts of France, does that mean the French only exercise de facto sovereignty over France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly it was 1940, not 1939. Secondly, large chunks of French law (especially civil law) probably still applied - people were born, got married, got divorced, died inherited property, had commercial disputes and the like and the law relating to the handling of these events probably remained unchanged, so saying that German law applied is stretching a point. The situation was that Germany was in de dacto control of France and as such they gave high level guidance to French administrators on how to implementing local law. They only amended those parts that suited them. It is debatable whether or not they were in de facto control of Vichy France - that depends on whether you regard Vichy France as being a puppet state or one who avoided upsetting the Germans. As regards the de jure governemnt - one might go as far as to say that Britain recognised de Gaulle as the de jure representative of the French people. I hope that this puts things into perspective. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That’s right, excepting Alsace-Lorraine (Elsaß-Lothringen) which was reunified with Germany and where German law applied I believe. Despite their German origins, the local people there predominantly prefer association with France; after WWII they were reunified once again, this time with France. Anyway, wartime law and administrative arrangements don’t count – unless you win the war, that is :-). Apcbg (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We are no lawmakers here legislating for the Falklands, therefore we are in no position to make 'compromises' regarding the law that applies on the Islands. Apcbg (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we are not lawmakers (or interpreters of law), we cannot say anything about a "de jure" claims unless it is backed up by a reliable (and preferable impartial) source. There are plenty of reliable sources about the "de facto" situation - the a British military presence, the Union flag flying, the Qeeen's head on stamps and coins. Martinvl (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no 'claims', it's just the Argentine claim.

Britain used to have a claim in 1690-1833.

Since then — you do not claim what you possess.

Your "whose law applies here" is not the military presence, flags or coins (the same QEII appears on Australian etc. coins), it's the everyday laws that regulate economy, social life, politics etc.

And there is no question what that law is, as already explained above. Apcbg (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Actualy you do claim what you posses, I claim to own the computer I am writing on.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and the UK claims England, Scotland and Llandudno Junction. Apcbg (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

{

If you visit The Free Dictionary you will find the sentence "A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. [my emphasis] In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state." In the case of the Falklands, there is sufficient dispute about who the legal government is that it is POV to state that the Britihs presence is or is not legal.

May I also suggest that you look up the use of the words "de jure" and "de facto" in respect of the governemnts of Rhodesia and of South West Africa, also of Zimbabwe and of Namibia during the 1970's. (BTW, I was living in South Africa at the time). Martinvl (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

“... and is so recognized by other states” – by which and how many other states? Could you please exemplify that by advising when exactly did the government of Argentina (United Provinces, Buenos Aires, whatever) become a de jure government?

Rhodesia and South West Africa were attempts to usurp the self-determination of the peoples of those countries (and that was the explicitly stated reason for non-recognition). Not so in the Falklands case; Argentina would like to do that but has no effective control of the country, hence there is no actual usurpation. Apcbg (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for its inclusion, so stop edit warring and leave it out untill you get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring, as in making too many reverts? I’ve made none. And consensus is achieved by way of talk page discussions – precisely what’s going on here. Apcbg (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Argentinians ever instituted and legal reforms on the island, nor did they change the judiciary, so it clearly false to say during the brief period of the invasion the falklands switched to operating under the argentinian legal system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.152.9 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that they did - as far as I am aware they applied martial law (ie control of all branches of government by military authorities). Martinvl (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

1806 withdrawal

Cawkell notes the withdrawal of all troops along with the Governor in 1806. Only settlers remained who nearly starved due to the British blockade preventing supplies. What supporting cites exist to support the claim troops didn't leave till 1811? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your question. I've self-reverted myself until I can bring the references. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Be wary of any source using Moreno's protest of 1834 as the primary source as he falsified the date of withdrawal in an attempt to bolster Argentina's claim. The information is wrong. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sovereignty discussions

These two sentences: "The issue was debated annually in the Argentine Congress and a formal protest issued until 1849. The matter was not raised again until 1941." plus this one "In International Law, territorial claims are usually considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between protests over sovereignty." would appear to confirm Britain's Acquisition of title by prescription argument since it implies a 92 year gap between protests. I think this needs some clarification, since that's definetily not what this source (referenced in the last sentence quoted) states at all. The source reads:

It can be argued that the conditions for acquisition of a title by prescription were not satisfied because of Argentina's continued protests at the British occupation from 1833 to the present day. Furthermore, in 1884 Argentina offered to take the case to arbitration. Britain refused. This further strengthens the case against a British title by prescription.

The one point in favour of the British case is the gap between 1849 and 1884. During those 35 years no protest occurred, but Argentina stressed that silence should not be taken to mean abandonment of the claim.

It is possible that thirty-five years is long enough to allow the conclusion that Argentina had acquiesced in British possession and therefore Britain had acquired the title by prescription. The length of time required for acquiescence has never been determined by a tribunal, but most writers on international law suggest that fifty years or more without interruption are required for the acquisition of title by prescription to occur. Gaba p (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could use "debated" instead of "raised"? "The matter was not debated again until 1941". --Langus (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Given as the rest of the paragraph goes into some detail on the point of protests during this period, I see no problem here to be addressed. We need to assume that the reader is going to read the article. Worth also noting the obvious bias in the source. Kahastok talk 21:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, the article written by Professor Christoph Bluth, from the University of Leeds, looks much more neutral than the "Getting it right" counter-pamphlet, which is being used at large lately. After all, the introduction clearly states that "It is found that both Britain and Argentina have a strong, but not conclusive case".

Back to the issue, despite that the protests are detailed below, I do see a potential problem, and I reason that a clarification wouldn't hurt the article. Au contraire.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence The matter was not raised again until 1941 needs clarification or a clear source. Where is this stated? I could not find it in the source referenced in the article (I couldn't find it anywhere really) This fact is also mentioned here twice, but no reference is given either. Gaba p (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the source is exactly Pascoe & Pepper's Getting it Right. They stress the amount of time that the issue wasn't discussed in the chambers because, you know, they're trying to strengthen/defend the British position (bias?). They even put it in numbers in page 23 ("the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941").

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That can't be right, that source is amazingly biased. This is the literal conclusion of that pamphlet:

We conclude that the Argentine seminar of 3 December 2007 and the two Argentine 2007 pamphlets do not make a case for Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. All these islands are rightfully British.

The Falklands dispute was ended over 150 years ago with Argentina’s agreement; there is no need for any "solution".

(bolded in the original) Is this an acceptable source? What are WP guidelines about such biased sources? Are there other sources used in this article as biased as this one? Gaba p (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes its an acceptable source as it generated by academics, published and peer reviewed not to mention impeccably sourced. The fact you dislike an author's conclusions that contradict your own nationl viewpoint is immaterial.

And you are both putting the cart before the horse, the paper is written in response to a factually flawed and highly biased document issued by the Argentine Government, amongst which it quotes Roberto C. Laver. That author attempts to cover up the rather embarassing 91 year gap in Argentine protests by creatively intepreting what constitutes a protest. So for instance he claims an Argentine claim to be responsible for venereal disease in the Falklands as a protest or exchanges with the postal union as a protest, neither of which would qualify as a diplomatic protest to the British Government. On the one hand you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece.

Its not as if Pascoe and Pepper do not make this plain in the preamble to their document. 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I was merely asking about an obvious biased source and what WP guidelines, if any, existed regarding this. From you comment I get that none, so I'll have that in mind when editing. Also, the fact that P&P's pamphlet agrees with your own viewpoint doesn't make it any less biased. As you said, the authors themselves make this fact plain clear. Lastly, could we not start calling each other nationalistic? It's a non-constructive attitude and an accusation that can easily be swung both ways.

Back to the topic.

This impeccably sourced reference also states that the gap between protests is of 35 years, and not 91 years as the sentence "The matter was not raised again until 1941" implies. That sentence is biased and false since it doesn't restrain itself to formal protests but to any mention of the matter. Even P&P's pamphlet states (pag. 23): After the Message to Congress in December 1849, the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941 (bolded by me). Note how it clearly says that the 91 year gap existed only in the "Messages to Congress". That is very different from stating that the "matter was not raised again" for 91 years, which is actually 100% false. This part of P&P's pamphlet couldn't be clearer (footnote, pag. 31):

Tower reported on 20 March 1915 that “I have been personally assured by Dr. Murature, and as he authorised the Argentine consul-general in Panamá on the 20th February to state officially, the last Argentine protest in regard to the Falkland Islands was dated 1888…” (quotes from Sir Reg inald Tower’s despatches to British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, 23 December 1914, in British Documents on Foreign Affairs Part II, D (Latin America, 1914-1939), vol. I, ed. Geo rge Philip, 1989, p. 18; and to Sir Ed ward Grey, 20 March 1915, in BDFA Part II, D I, 1989, p. 20).

(bolded by me) The last Argentina protest dates from 1888 and that quote is from 1914. That's 26 years. Can you see how that sentence is misleading? This is the change I propose, feel free to improve upon it:

Although the matter was not raised again in the Messages to Congress until 1941, Argentinian protests to the Britain government were resumed in 1884.

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

They were not resumed in 1884, there was a single protest in 1888, then nothing further till 1941. The claim of continuous protests is demonstrably false. Further Argentina's Government did not conider the matter till 1941 so the edit is accurate. So about the best you can do, is Aside from a single protest in 1888, Argentina did not raise the matter in the Messages to Congress, the formal route for protests, for 91 years. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think the 1888 thing went through Messages to Congress? In any case, this entire question is addressed in some detail by the remaining three quarters of the paragraph, so I see no basis for change here. Kahastok talk 16:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really not see the bias in your rephrasing of the sentence Wee? You are stressing the 91 year gap and the formal route for protests part, thus clearly stating that Britain's acquiescence argument is valid. How about this:

The matter was not raised again in the Messages to Congress until 1941.

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No and like User:Kahastok I see no basis for change here. I don't appreciate the personal accusation either, focus on content not editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am focusing on content, that's why I said your rephrasing of the sentence was biased, I didn't attack you as a person. Please don't start throwing accusations around again, we've been through this not long ago and it led us nowhere.

I'm proposing a very small change regarding an unclear sentence taken from a biased source, and you won't agree to even that. My proposition was to add simply in the Messages to Congress to make that sentence more clear. The remaining part of that section is inconsistent as it is, since it does mention the 1888 protest but the sentence still says The matter was not raised again until 1941. which is simply not true. Gaba p (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Request: could anyone provide sources on international law on the topic of how a sovereignty claim is kept alive? Because I (and Laver, among others) disagree with Pascoe & Pepper in that a formal protest to the invading country is the only valid mean. And after all, Graham Pascoe's fields are linguistics and philosophy, and Peter Pepper is a geologist. --Langus (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record: WCM I think you misunderstood the protest related to "venereal diseases". It was a notification to the Belgium government (Foreign Minister Angel Gallardo to ambassador Robert van der Straten-Ponthoz) stating that Argentina "maintained its protest to the wrongful occupation of the islands" included by the UK as one of its colonies in a convention about venereal diseases signed in Brussels. --Langus (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no basis for a change here. The current sentence is correct and accurate. Mcarling (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Arana-Southern Treaty

“ Several authors, both Argentine and British, argue by failing to mention Argentina’s claim to the islands in the Convention, (Rosas) effectively dropped it by acquiessance. ”

Who exactly? I'm particularly intrigued about Argentine authors.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín, Cuando Rosas quiso ser inglés for example, published in Argentina in 1974. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you referencing the book or Pascoe & Pepper's pamphlet? Could you paste what's stated in the book please? I don't have access to it. Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Google is your friend, [3] and I'm sure they have libraries in Argentina. Last time I referred to that book it was in Glasgow University library, I don't have a personal copy. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I did search Google (of course) but I didn't find anything, that's why I asked. I don't know what I'm supposed to see in the link you pasted. It shows me a book with no preview available and a search in that book for the word 'Arana' with no results. Do you see anything different? If you can actually see the book's content, could you please paste the part you are referencing? Gaba p (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Did any of the authors that support this acquiessance idea say something about the derogation of the treaty? Because it was derogated in 1852, just 3 years afterwards, accepting a request from a diplomatic mission from Britain and France (Rosas was no longer in power by then). Cambalachero (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Any derogation after the treaty came into effect (upon ratification in 1850) would have had to have been agreed by both signatories to have any legal effect. Mcarling (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The derogation was to allow for free navigation on the disputed rivers. It did not re-instate any prior claims. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

falklandshistory.org is a self-published website

Why are we using it? Hcobb (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a readily available online resource for primary sources that are not published elsewhere - and it is reliable. What exactly do you dispute? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Then mine it for sources and use those. Disintermediation! Hcobb (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a concern? The material cited to it is uncontroversial. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Wee Curry Monster, but I agree with Hcobb. Disintermediation is important. Mcarling (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I disputed it's obvious bias (specifically the P&P pamphlet), but Wee said it was acceptable under WP guidelines. Gaba p (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWB. 31.People who loudly accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of, but blind to, some variant of that vice themselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWB. 35.It's good to let your ego be punctured once in a while. Most of us, after several years and tens of thousands of edits, start to put a lot of our egos into our work here, more than we originally either intended or anticipated. While it's natural for this to happen, the unintended consequences include feelings of ownership over one's contributions and a quickness to react in poor faith, and even with arrogance... Gaba p (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sticks and stones, old boy, sticks and stones. Kisses. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, you're funny. Hey and sticks and stones right back at ya mate. Gaba p (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Every bundling comes with bias. From the limitations of the bundler, if nothing else. The way to overcome bundling bias is with effective review and self-published sites lack this. Therefore we ought to unbundle and let all of the unbundled references stand or fall on their own. Hcobb (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not biased, its just that it contradicts Argentine claims that are historically inaccurate - such as the expulsion of Vernet's settlement in 1833. But again here its citing facts that are uncontroversial. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, what exactly do you dispute that is cited by this reference? I wouldn't care but I've asked 3 times now. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My dispute is that the website does not match to our requirements to use it as a reference. To the extent that it links to reliable sources we should use those instead. Hcobb (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing to do this, or expect others to do it? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If Hcobb wants to replace secondary citations with primary citations without changing the text of the article (which I guess is what he wants) then that should be uncontroversial, right? Mcarling (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The only remaining issue is to determine which of the bundled references support each claim. Hcobb (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'm slightly wary of people who make a fuss but aren't prepared to put in the leg work. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't have all these sources. Why? Because we have a site that makes claims and then claims that these claims are covered somewhere in their big stack of references. Hence the problem. Hcobb (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a big problem. Secondary sources are ok, but primary sources are better. If someone wants to do the work, then that's fine. If not, then there is no point in complaining. Mcarling (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands.

How is that sentence true? WCM? Gaba p (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is true, Argentina did not protest to the UK between 1850 and 1888, then there were no further protests till 1941. Further the section is presenting the British claim in that section and that is the British position. I note we also present the Argentine position without attempting to remove facts we don't happen to like; for example Argentina's argument for denial of the self-determination right of the islands is based upon a false claim that the settlement was expelled in 1833 (which never happened). Wee Curry Monster talk 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is: The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands, and you say It is true, Argentina did not protest to the UK between 1850 and 1888, then there were no further protests till 1941.

Where is the logical leap I'm missing that starts from a hiatus between 1850 and 1888 and from 1888 to 1941 and ends with the statement that Argentina's protest ended? Gaba p (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is quite misleading... --Langus (t) 14:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what is trying to be said is that this ended Argintinas legitimate claim, but we w9uold still need a source for that claim mas wwell.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No it is not, it is stating the British position, it is not misleading. Removing the statement is misleading as you're removing part of what the UK maintains in its claim and it is easily sourced; to whit Hague's recent statement for exa,ple. We don't comment on the nonsense in Argentina's claim where there is a leap of logic stemming from the false claim of an expusion in 1833 that never happened, therefore the Falkland Islanders can't have a self-determination right. Or perhaps Argentina's claim to be responsible for venereal disease in the Falklands is a "protest"! Wee Curry Monster talk 14:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say that Argintinas claim ended. Does it say that becasue Spain did not maintian the settlement this voided argintinas claim? Or is that how you ae reading the source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing two issues, the British do maintain that Argentina's claim ended with the signing of the Convention of Settlement. Spain agreed with France to maintain a settlement at Port Louis as part of their agreement, Spain did not. That is a separate point. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No the point is a claim that a source says X, does it? Does the source say that becaseu Spain did not maintian its settlement that voided argentians claim?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is true. The Convention of Settlement did end Argentina's protests over the Falklands. That Argentina later tried to resuscitate their protests doesn't make the statement any less true. Mcarling (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok Wee, can you produce a source to back the claims The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands (1). After the Message to Congress in December 1849, the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941 (2). If so please add them and I would consider that as sufficient. Right now even though it is in the British claim section, it reads more like a statement of a fact rather than a statement of UK's position (and even if it's just UK's position, it still needs a reliable source)

Both sentences are taken literally from P&P's pamphlet page 23 and even there it just says so, it doesn't reference any primary source. Thanks. Gaba p (talk)

The primary source, the only possible primary source in this case, is the set of transcripts of all the Messages to Congress from 1850 to 1940. Any other source would inherently be secondary. Mcarling (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[4] A UN document, which includes a statement by the UK ambassador laying out the British position. As noted above it was not mentioned in the Messages to Congress from 1850 till 1941. It is the British position and you are trying to wikilawyer it out. I could equally point to elements of the Argentine claim that read as statements of fact, are we to remove those as well? See also WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, a secondary source is preferrable in this case. There is no basis for removing this from the British claim section. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So why not use that as the source, rather then one that you seem to be unwilling to provide a quote from?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Wee look, someone agrees with you, can I accuse you of WP:TAGTEAM too? Ha, just joking. So Mcarling do you presume P&P had access to said transcripts? How else do you think they would now that? Because they're not referencing anything as you can see. Gaba p (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No you can't, seeing as you acted in concert to force the removal of material claiming the cite didn't support it and no one else has. Laver p.30 clearly does. Criticising a source by speculating about the research of its authors is not sustainable either. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

seeing as you acted in concert again with the unfounded accusations Wee... Do you always accuse people you don't agree with of WP:TAGTEAM? How can I know you and Mcarling didn't agree prior coming here on what to say/do? Don't you realize how silly your accusations are? Anyway... Criticising a source by speculating about the research of its authors is not sustainable either, can you really tell me you believe the authors of that pamphlet had access to said transcriptions? What other scenario do you propose of them acquiring such privileged information? Gaba p (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I hadn't seen your comment above, that seems like a much more reliable source. Let me check it out and I'll come back to you. Gaba p (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pascoe and Pepper have done extensive research in the Argentine archives and the information is not priveliged. Anyone can access them, they were published in the public domain. This is simply more speculation to discredit a source and its not sustainable. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that is definitely an interesting source. For what I can see it says nothing about the Message to Congress issue, the closest thing is the sentence:

In the 90 years following ratification of the 1850 Convention, the Republic of Argentina only submitted one official diplomatic protest, in 1888. Now, either you consider this official diplomatic protest as actually referring to a Message to Congress protest or you don't. If you do, then the 91 year gap statement is shown to be false. If you don't then the question remains because there's nothing in that source about it: what source is there to back the 91 year Message to Congress gap as a British claim? And if P&P's pamphlet is the source then: where is P&P getting the information about this gap? Gaba p (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What utter nonsense it doesn't contradict it, it confirms it absolutely. The source is Buenos Aires, the Argentine national archive - this is simply trolling now you've had an answer already. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me correct myself. It doesn't really matter where P&P got that information from or if they invented it, it doesn't even matter if Mark Lyall Grant (author of that UN article) makes any sense or not. The 91 year gap is stated as a British claim and I think P&P's pamphlet is a clear source for that being so biased towards Britain's position. So I withdraw my request to find a source for that 91 year gap, it's pointless. It doesn't matter if the gap is real or not, Britain says it is and so it is clearly a claim. I'd suggest referencing that UN article too as a source of that claim.

My problem with the gap is that I was looking for a reliable source of the gap itself when I should have been looking for a reliable source of the claim for that gap.

Wee you say those transcripts are in the public domain, would you happen to have a link for that? Because I looked but couldn't find it. Thanks Gaba p (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion that P&P didn't read the manuscripts of the Messages to Congress while they were in the Argentine National Archives is absurd, especially as P&P's 40 page paper cites documents in the Argentine National Archives 22 times. I have not tried to count the number of citations in P&P's thousand page document. Mcarling (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over citation

Can we revert to the pre-dispute version of the articel and discus sources here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am askng that the low level edit war stops untill this matter is resovled.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit war, Langus keeps removing a cite which on the face of it is an uncontroversial fact - which he allows to be repeated later. He's made no attempt to explain his rationale to me and instead keeps removing it, which on the face of it appears to be vandalism. 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

An edit war is where two (or more) editors keep reverting each others edits, that is what is happening. I am asking now for the page to be reverted to its pre-edit war status and the page locked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing a valid cite is vandalism, reverting vandalism is not edit warring. As usual taking this to talk could solve the problem, instead we see two editors working in conjunction per WP:TAG to force a change. I wouldn't risk another revert in case it is falsely reported as edit warring, which appears to be the motive here. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an accusation that the source does not support the claim, that I wuld argue that the edits are in good faith. can you provide the quote from the source that supports the text?Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to this section to keep both topics separated. Gaba p (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster How about if you just produce the quote from the source that supports the text and be done with it, instead of accusing me and Langus (and Slatersteven?) of working together to annoy you? Gaba p (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The pre-dispute version is that of 10:49, 16 May 2012‎. After that, Nigelpwsmith added a source which doesn't support the statement. I don't blame him as he's new to Wikipedia policies, but WCM should be more careful about these issues. --Langus (t) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You keep removing a cite [5] claiming it doesn't support the statement. Laver p.30 clearly states that it was a requirement that Spain continued to maintain a colony at Port Louis. Spain largely abandoned its colony in 1806 and made a complete withdrawal in 1811. On the face of it, it supports the statement that Spain breached its agreement with France. My comment stands this should have been taken to talk - you have successfully tag teamed to remove it. How doesn't it support the statement? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a dispute about this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How can it be a "dispute"? The cite states precisely that Spain agreed to maintain a settlement. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the soource say that this ended argintinas claim?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The citation directly supports the claim. I cannot see any way of rationalizing removal of the citation as anything other than vandalism. Mcarling (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If my memory serves me abuot this source it says that there was an agreement, nit that spaoin wsa in breach of it (or that this nulified Argineitnas claim) again can we have a quote demonstratiing that I am wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming that there was synthesis here? I don't see it personally - as part of the agreement Spain agreed to maintain a settlement - they didn't. Its a statement of fact. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the source say that this nullified argintinas claim?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No but then neither does the article? It states that Spain breached the agreement. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"That the title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 would have reverted by Fundamental breach when the Spanish breached the agreement to maintain a colony at Port Louis to prevent the British gaining title" Does the source say this?Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No the source does not say that verbatim but it does note there was an agreement that Spain would maintain a colony and Spain did breach that agreement. Do you disagree this is relevant? I'm struggling to see what the problem is here? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The problom is that it does not say that, I bleive the source says that this is in fact not the case. It repeats the British claim and dismises it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I'm willing to be convinced but if it its stating the British case then its a valid cite for a British claim is it not? We're sourcing a claim not a rebuttal of that claim - for example we don't source rebuttal of any of the Argentine claims. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I belive the source claimeed it was invalid in the same section it mentions the claim. And what I am saying is the source you are using states the British claim is not valid, So why not use a soource that does not critise the British possition?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example, I'm not aware of any serious legal discussion of Argentine claims regarding the Treaty of Tordesillas that does not dismiss it as a pile of festering dingo's kidneys (a homage to Douglas Adams). Anyway the point stands - it supports the statement so why is it being removed. Just because the source dismisses it, doesn't mean it can't be used. The assertion was it did not support the claim and it clearly does. A valid cite is being removed and the sentences tagged and you can bet your life the statement will then be removed as uncited. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Then fox them by using another source. I really fail to see why this is so objectionalbe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If an alternative source has to be sourced fine but in the mean time this is perfectly acceptable. The issue of edit warring and WP:TAG to remove a valid cite remains and that is simply vandalism. As no reason for removing it has emerged I intend to restore it presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Slatersteven : "That the title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 would have reverted by Fundamental breachwhen the Spanish breached the agreement to maintain a colony at Port Louis to prevent the British gaining title" Does the source say this? Answer: no, it doesn't. It does talk about how the French wanted to prevent the British from gaining title, but the first part (the core of this British claim) is not in the cited source, not even refuted. (In fact I have reasons to believe it is original research, or at best an idea not yet published.) If I'm wrong please correct me with a quote, not just 'blah blah blah'. Until then I'll keep reverting, noting that the one going against WP spirit is you, WCM. --Langus (t) 13:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Laver does say that as part of the agreement with France, Spain agreed to maintain a settlement. Spain did not. Are you disputing that the sources says this, Laver p.30, easily verified for yourself with Google Books. You claim it is WP:OR, how is that, when that is what the source says? The original claim you made was that the cite did not support the claim, now the goal posts are moving to claims it is WP:OR. Pray is it because you've noticed that is what the source says? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Then lets have a quote please? As I can find no claim on page 30 that the Spanish inabilty to maintian a settlemt made its treaty with France void, nor can I see on page 30 any mention of the British goverments attitude. Page 31 indeed says that the agreemtn was fully implemented in an "expeditious manner", so no it does not supprt the text.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the solution here is to add it to the French claim that the agreement included a provision for Spain to maintain a settlement and also note that Spain did not. Both are citable easily. If Nigel can produce a cite confirming his claim then it may change but for now I'd suggest removing that from the British claim section. Does that seem a reasonable solution?

If it isn't yet published then I agree it appears to be WP:OR, however, on the face of it the cite supports the claim that Spain breached the agreement. Langus needs to be clearer in what he is objecting to. Here the cite is not the problem as stated but that the editor was drawing their own conclusion. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

French pretensions were already included in the French claim section, and I have no objections to that. I don't recall Laver saying that the agreement "included a provision". Those words seem to imply that they were written down, which is not yet clear to me. I believe the current wording correctly reflects the source: "France insisted that Spain maintain the colony in Port Louis and thus prevent Britain from claiming the title to the Islands and Spain agreed". --Langus (t) 16:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have or know where to find the text of the 4 October 1766 agreement between France and Spain? Mcarling (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias in article intro

The last sentence of the article's intro although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation is biased towards Britain's position and should either be removed or moved to the 'British claims' section (with its correspondent citation added). Thoughts? Gaba p (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not biased at all, its a statement of fact. Argentine claims of an expulsion in 1833 are untrue. What would be biased would be allowing that claim to stand unchallenged as it is allowing a falsehood to be promulgated. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. The fate of virtually every settler is documented in contemporary Argentine, British and American records, which are unanimous on that. Apcbg (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a sovereignty dispute, you don't get to decide what is a fact and what is not; that's why there are references and 'Claims' sections. According to Argentina, it is a fact that the British expelled not only militar but civilian popullation living there see here, should we add that fact to the intro too? Even this article says there were civilians living there at the time. My point is: you are making a subjective interpretation of facts when you say this claim is contradicted. It is only contradicted from the British point of view, not from the Argentinian one. Could you at least cite a reference for that claim? Gaba p (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No its a claim by Argentina that the civilian population was expelled, the historical record shows this is actually untrue. A lie is a lie. Claiming it is an Argentine "fact" doesn't make it true and we mention what Argentine claims. You can assert it is a fact that black is white but you'll only manage to kill yourself on a pedestrian crossing. The lede does not need a cite as it is expanded in the article. This has nothing to do with POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And btw it is not a "British POV", that claim is contradicted by contemporary Argentine records such as the log of the ARA Sarandi for example. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what the problem is? Your bias towards the British position makes you try to scrutinize and analyze facts instead of just pointing them out in the article. "the historical record shows this is actually untrue", this is no what Argentina says (and again, check this article where you'll find sources of what I'm saying) and so it's a British claim. Furthermore you can't decide for yourself that a "claim is contradicted by contemporary Argentine records", if you want to do that then do your research and write a book about it. WP is not the place to write down your subjective views on a topic. On the other hand if you have a source that claims what you are saying then please reference it. I still say this should be moved to the British claims section as it introduces a bias where it is, whether Wee wants to admit it or not (of course I won't touch it unless there is consensus) Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

BrickbatsThe historical record both British and Argentine shows this is untrue, nothing to do with POV or a "British claim" and there were still members of Vernet's settlement resident in the 1850s. The only civilians resident in the islands between 1833 and the formal commencement of British colonisation in 1842 were those remaining from Vernet's settlement. Further I have not decided anything for myself, it comes from a source. There is no bias but what you're trying to do would introduce it. You repeat a common mistake that NPOV requires us to give equal credence to falsehoods perpetuate by nationalist ideologies - it does not. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you keep doing it: "shows this is untrue", you can't just say that; you have to substantiate that claim with a source (both an Argentinian and a British one) that says that. "The only civilians resident", you're still subjectively analyzing a fact. Who are you to decide if those civilians count or not? "equal credence to falsehoods" and who decides what constitutes a falsehood in a sovereignty dispute? It's a delicate issue, that's why it should be left to sources. You are not citing sources for that claim, I cited even a WP article where it's stated that there were in fact Argentine population living there. The mere fact that the sentence starts with an "although" is indicative that it is biased towards Britain's position and shouldn't be there. If Britain says no civilians were expelled but Argentina says there were, then it's a disputed fact and should be in the corresponding section. And you still haven't cited the sources that makes that claim. The sentence says: "although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation", so please reference the source that specifically states this. Gaba p (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope you fundamentally do not understand NPOV. We do not report on Argentine claims from an Argentine POV, or on British claims from a British POV, instead we comment on Argentine and British claims from a neutral POV. If Argentine claims are demonstrably untrue, NPOV does not require we report them as true from an Argentine POV. You are the only person to keep referring to national viewpoints, blinkered by a crude nationalism with the misguided notion that we have to reflect that nationalist viewpoint. We don't. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral in saying "although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation", you really don't see it? As it is you are making a subjective statement of a fact based on your own interpretation (of the documents), how is this NPOV? If a source specifically says that, then we should add it and change "contradicted by the contemporary documents" to "contradicted by some sources (based on contemporary documents)". Otherwise it's just WP saying it and then it is POV. WP is not an original source of facts/knowledge, it's an encyclopedia. If you are going to state a fact, you have to reference it.

If the contemporary documents relating to the occupation are so clear about contradicting that claim then there must be a source we could reference, could you please cite it? Gaba p (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you presume it is my intepretation, it is not. And again per WP:LEDE we do not generally include citations in the lede. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean your as in you specifically, I meant as in any WP editor. Citing WP:LEDE: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.". This it what is says later on in this article (under Claims by the United Kingdom):

• That the islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of "2 months of illegal occupation" by Argentina.
• That Argentina's attempts to colonise the islands in 1820–33 were "sporadic and ineffectual".
• That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.

Not only is none of those claims sourced, they do not specifically address the statement that there are contemporary documents contradicting the occupation.

I direct anybody reading this (other than Wee of course) to please go here and read the comments by the two editors that responded to Wee. They say almost exactly what I'm saying here. Most notably are the excerpts:

- ""contemporary historical record" from 1833 needs to be interpreted, even if it is argentine records. So when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case" Taemyr

and

-"A few thoughts on this... first we (Wikipedia editors) should not be interpreting "contemporary historical records from 1833"... that is known as Original research... what we should do is report on the interpretation of published historians. (...) We (Wikipedia editors) must be neutral when reporting on the non-neutral claims of our sources. The best way to do this is through attribution. Tell the reader exactly who says what. " Blueboar

I'm simply asking to reference that controversial claim. Is it really that much to ask? Am I the one pushing POV here? Gaba p (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Curry Monster is right here. Even if there was agreement to add a reference to the lede, it will only be removed within a month or two on the basis of WP:LEDE.

I view the NPOVN discussion as rather more closely favouring the status quo. It doesn't say that we have to pretend that a claim is accurate when it can be demonstrated that it isn't, which was the effect of your original proposal. That's a pretty standard understanding of WP:NPOV. Just like we don't have to give equal credence to the POV that the Earth is flat. Nobody's saying that we should leave the Argentine government's POV out - that is the whole point of putting this claim - but we can't imply that it's neutral.

That's not to say that I would be averse to removing the entire section from the lede, so, ending the point after the words "do not have the right to self-determination".

(On the other things you claim are unsourced from the British claims section, they're actually all sourced to the FCO, and in any case aren't being used to back up the statement concerned.) Kahastok talk 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:NPOVN generated precisely the comment I expected and it offers no comfort to the claims you're trying to make. Yes you are the one pushing a POV here. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the comments from both those editors clearly state that a reference should be given, go check it out again please. If you don't have any (as it would appear, otherwise you'd have produced it already) that sentence must be removed (and the POV thing was a rhetorical question, there's no doubt who is pushing POV here Wee)

Kahastok I cited WP:LEDE where it clearly says Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations, I don't get why you say it would be removed, it wouldn't violate any guidelines. In any case, I would be ok with removing everything after "...right to self-determination"; is this what you are proposing? Actually, that whole last paragraph could be removed since the point of self-determination is addressed fully in the article from both POV; but I don't want to get into another endless status-quo discussion so if you agree to remove everything after "...right to self-determination" then I would just need Wee's confirmation that he's ok with it and I'll do it.

As for the last part of your comment, this part "aren't being used to back up the statement concerned" was exactly my point. Since that statement has no citations of it's own and there's nothing in the rest of the article to support it, then it should be removed. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to see it removed to satisfy a POV push. And yes there is no doubt who is pushing a POV here. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with not removing it too, we would just need a reference for that claim. Can you produce one? Gaba p (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I insist: the claim needs a source. I'm not saying we should give equal weight to Argentinian and British POV, I'm simply stating that such a claim needs to be sourced otherwise it falls under the category of WP:OR. If the worry is that per WP:LEDE it will be removed (although I've mentioned two times now that a cite in the lead section is perfectly ok in controversial articles by WP guidelines) then the statement should be moved out of the LEDE and a citation needed tag added to it.

I also note that in the course of this discussion I've asked Wee no less than 5 times to produce a reference for that claim, which he has failed to do each time (but yet refuses to move/remove the statement). Gaba p (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Much as this may wikilawering I have to agree, we need a soource for any claim. I will be putting a CN tag there.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor Apcbg added a reference. It says:

Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982. pp. 97-98. (The author tracks the fate of the Argentine settlers who stayed on the Falklands after 1833, quoting contemporary sources such as the Argentine Augusto Lasserre who visited the islands in 1857 and 1869.)

I don't have access to that reference so I have to ask: does it say anywhere in that book that contemporary documents contradict (or do not support or refute) the Argentine claim that population was expelled by the British? If so please quote it verbatim, the quote provided is not acceptable as it is, since it doesn't address the issue in any way. Gaba p (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lasserre’s reports on the number and occupation of the Argentine settlers on the Falkland Islands after 1833 do contradict the claim that the Argentines had been expelled in 1833. And that’s precisely what the lede says – that contemporary sources contradict that claim, not that they say they contradict it (if such a claim existed in the 1860s at all). Lasserre's account was originally published in the Buenos Aires newspaper Rio de la Plata on 19 and 20 November 1869. Apcbg (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Lasserre’s reports (...) do contradict the claim", I'm sorry but that is your own interpretation of the source and thus WP:OR. You need to cite a source for that particular claim. You are incurring in WP:OR because you make a statement based on a source instead of making it actually referencing the source.

"that’s precisely what the lede says – that contemporary sources contradict that claim, not that they say they contradict it", that's exactly my point! WP is not the place for personal interpretation, right now the lede says that, not the source. Gaba p (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Destéfani citation is sufficient. It is a contemporary Argentinian source which refutes the Argentine claim. Mcarling (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There is not, and never has been, a requirement that we quote exactly the terms used in secondary sources. Destéfani is fine.

More important than Gaba p's repeated quotes of WP:LEDE is what people actually do. It is not unusual for editors to come to articles and remove all citations from the lede, because the lede should be merely summarising the article contents. Cites added to ledes of even vaguely prominent articles rarely if ever remain there for very long. As such, I would suggest that it is very likely that this cite will be removed per WP:LEDE, probably within the next few months. Kahastok talk 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Look this is pretty simple. Somebody, some editor, wrote that sentence, ok? Now that editor either a- took that statement from an actual source, or b- came up with it after interpreting a source (or several). If the case is a- then let's just add that source and be done with it. If the case is b- then an actual source for that claim must be produced. The lede is not the place for OR, you can't write your own conclusions /interpretations from a source, you have to actually reference the source.

Kahastok If the citation will be removed then why not move the whole section out of the lede? Right now there is nothing in the actual article making this statement, why not just move it to the 'British claims' section?

Mcarling could you indicate where in particular in that source it says that the Argentine claim is refuted? What is quoted right now doesn't support that. Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A few comments:

• We shouldn't be limiting ourselves because of possible future actions of unknown editors. We establish now a decision and it will remain that way until someone comes and challenges our consensus. When (if) that happens, we will defend it or accept a new arrangement. This shouldn't be a reason to prevent us from introducing any modification.
• Some bits of this article does not follow the suggestions provided at WP:NPOVN:
  • "when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case";
  • "we (Wikipedia editors) should not be interpreting "contemporary historical records from 1833"... that is known as Original research";
  • "We (Wikipedia editors) must be neutral when reporting on the non-neutral claims of our sources. The best way to do this is through attribution. Tell the reader exactly who says what".

I'd be in favor of trimming the lede right after "...right to self-determination." If not, we should attribute this statement: "although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation".
Regards. --Langus (t) 23:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The report of an Argentine naval officer (Lasserre) that some Argentines had stayed on the Islands after 1833 – promptly published in Argentina in 1869, and quoted by another Argentine naval officer, Destéfani in 1982 – is in no want of interpretations. As for the idea of moving Lasserre's evidence to the ‘British claims’ section, that would be a little bit too surrealistic even for a Falklands sovereignty dispute topic, I reckon :-) Apcbg (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well where should it be (not in the lead by the way)?Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Apcbg you are interpreting the source and coming to your own conclusions: that is WP:OR. The source does not say "B" (that Argentinian claims are contradicted), the source says "A" (that some Argentines had stayed on the Islands after 1833) and from "A" you interpret "B". Again, this is WP:OR.

If you were to interpret the source, "A" doesn't necessarily imply "B": what if not all but 90% of the population was expelled by the British and that is what Lasserre saw? Would you say the Argentine claim is false or contradicted if this were the case? My point is: that source you referenced needs to be interpreted by someone in order to draw that conclusion and thus it is not acceptable as a reference for that statement.

To use this source, the last sentence of the lede would have to be changed to something like "although some sources indicate that some Argentines had stayed on the Islands after 1833". Then this statement would have to be added to the 'British claims' section and referenced there since they keep telling me "no sources in the lede". Gaba p (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to speculate about that. The evidence is that 27 remained and that 4 chose to leave. The mutinous garrison was expelled (and nobody denies that), but the civilian population was encouraged to remain - in fact, the inducements given were so significant that Vernet's company's failure to deliver them is considered a primary motive for the later Gaucho murders.

Your new proposal is distinctly misleading (the vast majority of those present remained, whereas it suggests that it was only a few), and it is fundamentally dishonest and strongly POV to try to present this point as a British claim when it is actually a simple statement of fact. And that's before we point out that you've now repeatedly tried to represent a statement sourced to an Argentine Naval officer as a "British claim". Kahastok talk 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If we're reporting Argentina's claim that the population was expelled, neutrality requires that we point out that the historical evidence is clear that this didn't happen (as has been demonstrated with sources). The alternative proposed - which suggests that the claim has some basis in fact, when all the evidence is that it doesn't - misleads the reader and strongly biases the article in Argentina's favour. Kahastok talk 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My original proposal also included that this statement be removed. If my current proposal (which I only drafted to try to accommodate Apcbg's source) is misleading than we don't use it, simple really. And I'll correct myself: In order for this statement to be moved to the 'British claims' section a source would be needed that this is in fact a British claim (which the current source is not) I think it'd be much easier to just trim the lede as originally suggested by Kahastok. (I won't be commenting again until monday) Gaba p (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no interpretation involved here. Numerous sources, including Destéfani, directly refute Manuel Moreno's exaggeration of the events. That some sources believed Moreno's false claims does not make them true. Mcarling (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, attribute the statement to them then. We're not here to "analyze the evidence" or to decide which group of authors is right (i.e. to distinguish "the truth"). The lede (the whole article, in fact) shouldn't talk about contemporary documents, only about the authors' opinion on those subjects. --Langus (t) 19:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we should not be citing fiction as though it were fact and then calling it "disputed". Falsified accounts should not be treated as valid sources. Mcarling (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually Langus is wrong and Mcarling is correct, we do not have to treat a falsified account as a valid source, nor does NPOV require us to treat what Argentina asserts to be fact from its POV. Consensus allows editors to objectively evaluate sources and how to present information in order to write articles in a neutral manner. I will repeat what I said earlier, we do not report on Argentine claims from an Argentine POV, or on British claims from a British POV, instead we comment on Argentine and British claims from a neutral POV. If Argentine claims are demonstrably untrue, NPOV does not require we report them as true from an Argentine POV.

“ Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis. It is significant that only a proportion of people at Vernet's settlement were in fact from Argentina. A large number came from Banda Oriental ”

A source as demanded, which pretty much hits the nail on the head. No doubt we shall have reams of tendentious argument suggesting this should be disregarded as a "British" source presenting a British POV. But no matter, let us evaluate the evidence, often from primary sources to establish whether this is a true statement of fact or not.

Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Onslow's orders were clear

“ “you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments.” ”

Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.

“ I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased. ”

“ I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land. ”

Pinedo corroborates this:

“ … those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before… ”

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

Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement.

There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives

I could go on, for example the death of Manuel Coronel, was widely mourned in the settlement in 1841 and residents of the settlement are recorded in the Falklands census of 1850. Example Carmelita Penny (remarried widow of the overseer Simon} and Antonina Roxas.

What is plain, the members of Vernet's settlement were documented by Pinedo in January 1833. They were still there as documented by Thomas Helsby in August 1833. Darwin and Fitzroy document their meeting with these same people in March 1833 and note the return in 1834 which documents meeting the survivors. I did not even need to mention the accounts in the archive in Stanley by Lt. Smith documenting all of the early years of the settlement, all settlers being those brought by Vernet augmented occasionally by temporary residents, nor his care for Vernet's assets.

Clearly what Argentina claims in its sovereignty claim is untrue, the assertion that the settlers sent there by Vernet were expelled to be replace by British settlers is demonstrably false. The opening as written is completely neutral and is not biased.

But before I call it a day

“ Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos. ”

Destefani documents not only that the settlers weren't expelled but that the remaining settlers importance in the early stages. And its not as if this is an unbiased book, rushed to print in 1982, 127,000 free copies were distributed to libraries in universities all over the world. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is so pointless... WCM you shouldn't ask for counseling in a Noticeboard if you're going to ignore the comments. I think your original research is reasonably valid, but as I said, pointless, as this is Wikipedia and not a forum. Editing in a contentious area requires from us the humility to leave the matter in the hands of reliable, secondary sources. If there are reliable, secondary sources that states that the population was expelled or replaced, is not right for us to disqualify them.

But, alas, consensus beats the Five Pillars every time (or so I've learned from experience so far).

Regards. --Langus (t) 00:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If we found a reliable, secondary source that said that Congress of Tucumán was in 1763 and took place in Ushuaia, (or, alternatively, the US Declaration of Independence in 1830 in San Francisco, the Battle of Hastings in 1143 somewhere near Edinburgh), would you want to alter those articles to allow for those possibilities as well? We must be neutral when reporting on non-neutral claims. And that doesn't mean treating a point that we know to be false as though it were accurate. Kahastok talk 06:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Langus, did you notice the first quote, that was a reliable secondary source. The rest is just pointing out how this is backed up by contemporary records. WP:OR applies to edits in article space, it doesn't mean that we can't do our own research in the talk page to evaluate the validity of certain claims. Editing in a contentious area requires us to carefully evaluate claims to ensure we don't allow wikipedia to be hijacked to promote a nationalist cause. Far from ignoring the comments in the noticeboard, they actually back up my approach 100%. And quit the breast beating about the 5 pillars I am less than impressed, the current article is fully in line with those 5 pillars. Wikipedia exists to promote a WP:NPOV not the Argentine and not the British POV. When you demand we reflect the Argentine POV, as you often do, and try to wikilawyer it into articles then you are violating the 5 pillars. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WCM, what you say can be reduced to the question "I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many statements that are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?", which is answered at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the opponent.

Kahastok, yes, if there were reliable sources saying that the Congress of Tucumán took place in the XVIII century in Ushuaia, and there were enough of them so that we could say it was not a fringe theory, then yes, by all means, we should mention that as well. Of course, that is not the case: unlike those topics, the location and dates of the Congress of Tucumán are undisputed. Cambalachero (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Any reliable secondary sources supporting the allegation that all Vernet's settlers were expelled by the British in 1833? Apcbg (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term or point of view, simply because it's the one commonly used or familiar to them. Can that not equally apply to Argentine claims concerning the so-called expulsion? Your comparison is clearly inappropriate, as to present what Argentina claims as part of its sovereignty claim as a fact without noting that the historical record is different from what Argentina claims is to promote a falsehood by omission. This is not so much "writing for the opponent" but writing to skew the POV of an article to promote a nationalist agenda; even if unconsciously. I suggest we simply present the facts and let people make their own minds up. If you're talking about "writing for the opponent", pray tell me why you are all so keen to remove this information?

To add to what Apcbg asks above, do you have a reliable secondary source that is backed up by the contemporary historical record? Anyone can make a claim but unless it is verifiable, then thats all it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Question to WCM and Pfainuk: if I bring here, say, 5 reliable, secondary sources stating the population was expelled/replaced, would you then agree to attribute the statements in the lede as suggested at WP:NPOVN? If not, how many reliable, secondary sources (approximately) would it take? Thank you. --Langus (t) 14:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Add: "a reliable secondary source that is backed up by the contemporary historical record", again, it's not up to us to "outsmart" secondary sources. --Langus (t) 14:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Wee's wall'o text is a clear example of WP:OR and I can't believe you really are trying to use that as a reason to use the disputed source. Let's make it simple again:

-The article says: "this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation" <-- Claim A

-The source says: there were Argentine inhabitants in the island after 1833 <-- Statement B

The article interprets B as meaning A. How is this not WP:OR?? The source does not say A! Gaba p (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, ‘secondary sources’ means sources that are secondary with respect to contemporary primary sources not to modern day Chancilleria statements. Like the French historians Langlois and Seignobos put it in 1897 in their immortal dictum: ‘No documents — No history’. Apcbg (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see we're down to personal accusations and ignoring what we don't like.

Langus, I simply note you chose not to respond, a common occurrence when you are trying to wikilawyer Argentine claims into articles. Instead, as usual you try to ask the unreasonable. Tell me how many untrue documents does it take to change the historical record? Which is exactly what you're trying to do. We present the Argentine claims, we don't ignore them. You simply wish to present them and hide the fact that there is more than compelling evidence to show they're untrue. Thats POV editing, which is precisely what the commentators at NPOVN advised against.

Gaba p. You repeatedly demanded I provide a source and I did. My comments are not WP:OR, I am not trying to back up my own synthesis, I'm simply demonstrating that a reliable secondary source is backed up by the historical record. I simply note you try to present a distortion of my actual posting in order to continue with pushing a POV.

Can you either of you produce a source with evidence backing up the claim it makes? Or do you simply wish to present an untrue statement as fact? I won't be holding my breath in anticipation. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"You repeatedly demanded I provide a source and I did", you didn't provide it, Apcbg did. "My comments are not WP:OR", of course they are. You should write a book. "I'm simply demonstrating that a reliable secondary source is backed up by the historical record" <-- this is the definition of original research. You are the one making the research and interpretation here, you know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. "to continue with pushing a POV", nope, that's all on you. "Can you either of you produce a source with evidence backing up the claim it makes?", we should produce a source?? You are the one making un-sourced claims, why should we do it?

Again, if you could address this issue I'd very much appreciate it:

• The article says: "this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation" <-- Claim A
• The source says: there were Argentine inhabitants in the island after 1833 <-- Statement B

The article interprets B as meaning A. How is this not WP:OR?? The source does not say A! Gaba p (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reality check, I do provide a reliable secondary source. Then I demonstrate how its backed up by reference to the historical record. Can you do the same or do you plan on continuing to do an "Alex79818" and deny the written record in front of you. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The best you could do with that first source is to change the sentence to something like: although this claim is contradicted by some sources and then have that statement appear sourced under the 'British claim' section. That is as far as you can take your source, and I stress the some part since I'm sure I could produce sources claiming that the populations was in fact expelled (whether you like them or not) As for the rest of your comment: "let us evaluate the evidence...", this is where I stopped reading. This is WP, not your blog where you can do your own OR.

Would you like to include that statement to the 'British claim' section and put the reference there? Or would you rather remove that whole section from the lede?

(Alex79818? You mean that editor you used to falsely accuse me of sockpuppetry and have me blocked for a month? The same accusation that was immediately dropped by and admin as soon as I revealed my true life identity? The same false accusation you never bothered to apologize for? You mean that editor?) Gaba p (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen could we please stop the defamation and the comments on editors, and focus on content?

WCM, I don't know what are you expecting me to answer, I believe I've already explained myself. I'm willing to investigate if there are reliable, secondary sources that back this idea, but first I need to know what would it take to convince you that this is a scholarly view worth of including as such, as I don't want to lose my time in vain. For what I've read so far, I believe several editors have already judged this claim as false (based largely on WP:OR and some secondary sources too), so I'm guessing that it would be a futile exercise. --Langus (t) 01:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No Langus, people have judged the claim as false because it is contradicted by reliable secondary sources of all nationalities, which they have confirmed with reference to contemporary historical records. The question you're dodging is are those reliable secondary sources you suggest support Argentine claims backed up by contemporary historical records? I can answer you already, they don't, they rely on playing semantics about the garrison that was removed. And focusing on content would be peachy but preaching about it then making a personal attack is rather hypocritical isn't it?

Gaba p. A very jaundiced view, you were reported to an admin because of the striking similarity in behaviour with the banned and prolific sockpuppeteer User:Alex79818, something you continue to do. And it wasn't dropped when you revealed identity documents to JamesWatson, it was dropped when I intervened with James with information I had about him. No funnily enough I don't feel the need to apologise for having gone much further than I needed to, seeing as how from the outset you see fit to make personal attacks on my integrity and continue to do so. You demanded a source, you got one and its backed up with evidence. Time to drop the stick and close this dramafest Wee Curry Monster talk 08:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha what a way to put a spin on reality Wee, but I expect that from you. "it was dropped when I intervened", it was dropped after I forced you to intervene and reveal to James the identity of Alex. You didn't even have the decency to stop by my talk page during my block, don't you remember? If it were for you, I'd still be blocked (and for what I've seen you started lobbying to have me blocked again about a week ago. How did that turn out by the way? Could it be that Nick-D and James didn't give you the time of day?) You are right about one thing thou, it's time to drop it. You've successfully managed to keep the bias in the lede, so good for you. I can't keep pushing against your hell-bent determination to enforce your pro-British position, I've invested too much time already. At least the evidence for what you are doing is now written down for everyone to see and not obscured behind an anonymous claim in the article. Have a nice day. Gaba p (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just say what the situation is, that 'according to X the population was expelled by this is disputed'.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I would rather suggest 'The population was not expelled (source) but Argentina claims otherwise (source)'. Apcbg (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The situation only arises because there is an insistence that the lede includes why Argentina denies the self-determination right of the islanders. Remove it and the need goes away - its amplified in the text anyways. Otherwise it should stay as it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no justification for including demonstrably false claims in the lede. Demonstrably false claims can go, as demonstrably false claims, in the main body. Omitting demonstrably false claims from the lede is not bias. Mcarling (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait "there is an insistence that the lede includes why Argentina denies the self-determination right of the islanders. Remove it and the need goes away", are you actually agreeing to remove the section from the lede? If so, why not do it when Kahastok proposed so 5 days ago?

Mcarling: "demonstrably false claims", and who decides which claims are demonstrably false? The sources you like best? The OR taking place in this talk page?

I'd also like to point out that under the Argentine claim section one can now find this:

“ ...Pinedo, heavily outmanned and outgunned, left the islands under protest. Argentines subsequently claimed that the population of Puerto Luis was expelled at the same time, though sources from the time dispute this, suggesting that the colonists were encouraged to remain under Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane. It is also documented that at least 27 members of Vernet's colony were still in residence in the islands in July of 1833 ”

this is a refute to an Argentine claim inside said section. You can not find a single instance of this happening in the British claim section. Gaba p (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out something that in the British claim section, which happens to be untrue? Therein lies the answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you didn't answer my question: are you agreeing to remove the section from the lede as Kahastok proposed?

As for the rest "which happens to be untrue", the same questions I asked Mcarling apply: who decides which claims are untrue? The sources you like best? The OR taking place in this talk page? Even more, that is the Argentine claim section. If Britain has refuted Argentina's argument then that refutation should be attributed to Britain and added to the British claim section. It shouldn't be WP the source for such a refutation no matter how true you think those refutations are because this is not the place for OR and you don't get to decide what is true and what is not, you only get to reference authors regarding such issues.

Would you find it acceptable if I added refuting sources to the British claim section making it look like: "José María Pinedo (...) protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January, though sources from the time dispute this, suggesting that the colonists were in fact expelled."? Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be acceoptable to remove any rebutals in the claism sections.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Gaba, an example of demonstrably untrue would be a secondary source, not based on any primary sources, which is contradicted by other secondary sources and contradicted by ALL of the primary sources. For example, Manuel Moreno's 1833 protest is a secondary source (to the extent that it claims to report what happened in the first days of January 1833 in the Falklands) that doesn't rely on any and is refuted by all primary sources. Also, Gaba, please stop introducing discussion of other topics into the thread. If you want to discuss a new topic, start a new thread. Mcarling (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, is anyone else finding this tiresome? Gaba p, have you a reliable secondary source stating that? Answer no. Have we got one backing up the statements in the article? Answer yes. Is the account reported by the secondary source we used corroborated by the historical record? Answer yes. Is yours? Answer no. There is your answer. We didn't decide what is true, the sources do and no matter how you try and wikilawyer it to try and malign everyone claiming OR or bias, the only one doing that is you.

There isn't a rebuttal in the claims section, neither is it a rebuttal, its provision of information. We let the reader make their own mind up by providing all of the information, this is just another example of Gaba P trying to skew the POV by censoring information that contradicts Argentina's claim. It happens to be in the section dealing with the historical facts. And I find it unacceptable that such information would be removed.

Time to close this, I think. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for introducing another discussion into this one, it really wasn't my intention in the first place. Should I move these comments to their own section?

Mcarling I disagree about Moreno's protest being a secondary source. He was actually alive there and then, how can we disregard his statements as a secondary source?

Wee, you still haven't answered my question: are you agreeing to remove the section from the lede as Kahastok proposed? (I'll adress the rest of your comment later, right now I have to go) Gaba p (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Gaba, the reason why Moreno is a secondary source (with respect to this particular question) is that he wasn't there and didn't see firsthand whom Captain Onslow did or did not expel, but there are numerous firsthand i.e. primary sources, some of which I listed above. If merely being alive at the time would make Moreno a primary source, then I could write in the Weekly World News that you murdered your mother seconds after you were born, before your umbilical cord was cut, and I would be a primary source just because I was alive at the time. Being alive at the time is far from sufficient to make a source primary, as the absurd example of you killing your mother before your umbilical cord was cut shows. Mcarling (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys but right now I just don't have the time to carry on with a second discussion so I'll have to drop my involvement in this one (it really wasn't my intention to start a second one) If you want to carry on with it, please do; otherwise I'll just bring it up again when I find some time and we can pick it up from here.

To close the original discussion, I'll just like for Wee to answer the question to know if the problematic (and now un-sourced again) section in the lede can be removed. The removal was proposed by Kahastok and backed by me and Langus. Wee apparently backed it in one of his comments but a confirmation would be needed. And of course your input too Mcarling (I believe you haven't address the removal of that section yet); this way we can see if a consensus has been reached about it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to avoid possible misunderstanding, could you please specify exactly which language you propose to delete? Maybe I know of a suitable source for citation. Mcarling (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the original proposal by Kahastok to remove from the lede everything after "...do not have the right to self-determination." to which apparently Wee agreed in one of his last comments. Gaba p (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I favor striking from the lede ", arguing that they are not aboriginal and are descendants of those brought in to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation" Mcarling (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then that makes four in favor. If Wee could confirm/deny what he said in his previous comment (or if someone else would back my interpretation of said comment, that he is in fact in favor) I'd say that pretty much means a consensus. Everybody agree? Gaba p (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like WCM is active here and has been for a long time, so there should be no reason to interpret anything less than a clear statement. He can speak for himself. Removal is not urgent. Mcarling (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I was very clear that I would support removing the whole sentence but if the comment about self-determination is to remain ie Argentina's denial then the rest should also. For the avoidance of doubt I would remove:

“ Argentina argues that the islanders do not have the right to self-determination, arguing that they are not aboriginal and are descendants of those brought in to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation. ”

And further for the avoidance of doubt if this is a precursor to removing information later in the document concerning how Argentine claims are contradicted by the historical record, then I oppose changing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WCM. The whole sentence should be deleted. Mentioning one particular claim in the lede among the many which are discussed in the article is not appropriate. I also agree with WCM that this should not lead to deleting similar material from the body of the article. Mcarling (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok's proposal (which I agree) intended to keep the part that reads "Argentina argues that the islanders do not have the right to self-determination." Otherwise, it only leaves in the lede the British argument: that "Contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. They gained full British citizenship with the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, after the Falklands War." Nonetheless, I agree that this shouldn't lead us to delete anything from the body. Regards. --Langus (t) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. They gained full British citizenship with the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, after the Falklands War." Those are not British arguments. Those are background facts. As far as I know, they are not in dispute. The problem with leaving the rump sentence is that the intro would then be biased by including only one claim (even one so easily refuted as the non-applicability of self-determination claim) from only one side. It's better to leave all the disputed claims out of the lede. Mcarling (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mcarling on the removal. Besides, we cannot introduce in the article (in the lede or elsewhere) the issue of self-determination by out of the blue informing the reader that Argentina does not recognize that right. That should be preceded by explaining that the Islanders exercise the right of self-determination and that is supported by Britain as the administering power of the Falklands. Apcbg (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So to summarise, you wish to state an Argentine claim in the lede, without explaining the basis for that claim or provide information that shows it to be false. Not only that but you describe basic background facts as "British claims" And you complain of an alleged "bias" because we wish to give people the information to make their own minds up. Did I miss anything out? Wee Curry Monster talk 07:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes: several guidelines about neutral point of view and a thread (started by you, ironically) in the NPOV Noticeboard. Cheers. --Langus (t) 12:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, the posting at NPOV, which stated we did not have to report untrue claims as "true from an Argentine POV". Thanks for reminding me.

[6] None so blind as those who will not see Wee Curry Monster talk 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In case someone did not see the comments in the NPOV noticeboard by the two editors that answered Wee, I think it's very important that you do because I sincerely believe Wee is misinterpreting and misquoting them on purpose; so here it goes:

"contemporary historical record" from 1833 needs to be interpreted, even if it is argentine records. So when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case. Presumably current pro-Argentinian experts makes no such claim?

The fact that we are reporting is "...Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833". Which is an uncontested, and easily sourced, fact, ie. nobody is claiming that Argentina is not claiming this. NPOV requires us to report all significant views, and the Argentine view is certainly germane to this discussion, so we can not leave it out. Taemyr (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this... first we (Wikipedia editors) should not be interpreting "contemporary historical records from 1833"... that is known as Original research... what we should do is report on the interpretation of published historians.

As for POV... we don't report on the claims from an Argentinian POV - we report on both the Argentinian and British claims from a Neutral POV. To put this another way: We (Wikipedia editors) must be neutral when reporting on the non-neutral claims of our sources. The best way to do this is through attribution. Tell the reader exactly who says what. For example... we might say: "Argentinian historian Juan Doe Y Smith contends that the Islands contained an Argentinian population that was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833 <cite source>. British historian Jane Jones disagrees and contends that the islands were unoccupied at the time <cite sources>." (note... ... obviously, I am making this up here... you would have to adjust the exact wording to match what the sources actually do say). Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the neutrality dispute template and I would extend it to the entire article in fact. There's just too much bias toward British position right now. Regards Gaba p (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not misinterpreted anything, the reply I got was what I expected. Nor is there a need to repeat their comments here so I have collapsed them. The article as written is neutral, I see no needs for extending it, particularly as Apcbg addressed my concerns with his edit. I see nothing in any of your comments that reflects a lack of neutrality, you're constantly talking about nationalist viewpoints and that is at odds with presenting neutrality. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV rules do not require us to include obviously false historical claims. If they did, the Earth article would have to give equal weight to the flat-earth hypothesis. The false claims that settlers were expelled in 1833 is contradicted by every Argentine source that was present, Pinedo, the log of the ARA Sarandí, etc. as well as by all the British and US records. The false claims, that started with Manuel Moreno's exaggerated protest to Britain, have no more credibility today than claims that the earth is flat. Mcarling (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@WCM: you are shockingly misrepresenting the discussion. Further, hiding the comments looks highly suspicious.

I've replaced the claim of "expelled population" for that of "transplanted population", both found in the same source. Hopefully this will resolve the issue.

Regards. --Langus (t) 18:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Which I reverted as it does not represent the Argentine position, which claims an expelled population. Wikipedia isn't censored and that edit censored the fact that Argentina makes a false claim.

As regards usual allegations of misconduct, I respond what utter nonsense. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Both claims are taken from the same official document from cancilleria.gov.ar. How do you conclude that one phrase reflects the official position better than the other one? To me, it looks like you are choosing the weakest one to beat. If you're worried about censorship maybe we should include both (not necessarily in the lede). --Langus (t) 20:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we please confine this discussion to the lede? Mcarling (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that argument Langus is utter nonsense. You did not select a "phrase that reflects the official position better", you carefully selected extracts of phrases to give a misleading impression. Its not a case of "two" claims, you attempted to present only part of it and in a way that was mendacious and misleading. I am not trying to "beat" anything, I do not see this as a contest - I only wish to present the facts and all the facts to allow a reader the facility to form their own opinions. Noticeably on the basis of a claim of an alleged "bias" you and other editors sought to remove information. There has been an effort to censor but its not acceptable here. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"you attempted to present only part of it and in a way that was mendacious and misleading" then it follows that the article is currently presenting only a part of the claim... don't you think?

Here, for example, author Wayne S. Smith supports author Oliveri Lopez, with these words: "The principle of self-determination is perhaps the most inapplicable of all. What we have in the Falklands/Malvinas islands is a transplanted population". --Langus (t) 05:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

First, Wayne Smith is an expert on Cuba, not an expert on international law, and not even a lawyer. Second, most of his forward is damnation of Lopez by faint praise. Third, his forward accepts as given all of Lopez's assertions, all of which are based on British sources who got it wrong, for example, "The British frequently assert, or suggest, that the islands were unoccupied at the time the British squadron arrived in 1833 to take them over." We all know that's not a frequent British assertion, though I'm willing to believe that some British idiot may have said it once or twice upon a time. Fourth, and most important, any opinions about the right of self-determination written before the International Court of Justice recognized the right of self-determination as a peremptory norm of international law in 1995, have been superseded by that development. Also, Langus, you seem to be taking us away from the question at hand, again. The question at hand is on striking from the lede these words: "The islanders exercise their right of self-determination with the support of Britain as the administering power of the Falkland islands. Argentina argues that they do not have that right, arguing that they are not aboriginal and are descendants of those brought in to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation." WCM, Apcbg, and I are in favor. You seem to be against, but haven't given a valid reason. Now, could we please stop changing the subject and answer the question at hand? What say you? Mcarling (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, we're presenting here what the Argentine Government claims and to quote one of your favourite policies Langus, you used a "euphemism" to cover a false claim made by Argentina. In addition, you're now editing warring to introduce a grammar error, by removing quote marks from a quote from the Argentine position. Do we now have to also point out that this "act of force" never happened - something even Pinedo's account backs up. The only person who contemplated the use of force was Pinedo. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removing the last two sentences from the lede as Mcarling suggested. Also Wee please refrain from editing my comments as I do not touch yours (or any other for that matter). Gaba p (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)