Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 16

Amendment proposals for two claims under "Current Claims"
I think the following two edits should be made:

1) In the list of British claims, to replace "That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement." by "That the islands had no indigenous population.", because it is a well-established fact that the French were settled at Port Louis when the British founded Port Egmont. I don't think any learned claimants say that Port Egmont was the first settlement. To improve its flow, the amended statement could take the second spot in that list.

2) To delete "That Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier." from the list of Argentine claims, because it is based on speculations and, imho, there is little connection between the two events other than a simplistic attempt to present Britain as the bad guy, which has little relevancy to the basis for the Argentine case and would at least require a comparison with the behaviour of other powers during the beginning of the Second Colonization Wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrés Djordjalian (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * -Number 1 seems reasonable but we'd have to get access to the source from where that claim was taken first to check the actual claim as stated. It doesn't matter whether the claim itself is inaccurate or not, if a country is claiming that then we list it as stated. It is the "Current claims" section after all. We don't care if a country is stating falsehoods, it's their claim regardless. Anyone know the source for this claim?
 * -Number 2. This one is a bit trickier. Does an analysis made by an Argentinian writer count as an official claim of that country? I'd like to hear what other editors say about this. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While it seems that expansionism is considered by some authors as a reason for the British Invasions, I usually don't see mention to them in the Falklands' literature. What I have found in many books about the dispute, is the remark of the British interest in Patagonia, and not just the Falklands. For example, in the 1908 enacting of the Falkland Islands Dependencies, the sector delimited by the British included part of Chilean and Argentine Patagonia; when the Falkland Islands Company was formed, it advertised Isla de los Estados as being part of the colony; several British entrepreneurs and military men suggested the idea of a settlment on the mainland; etc.
 * What I'm trying to say is that British expansionist interests are commonly mentioned in the literature, but with other examples.
 * Point #1 could be easily corrected by using "European settlements" instead of "British settlement". --Langus (t) 00:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Point #1 could be corrected that way but that still leaves the question unanswered: do we have a source for it? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  01:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would actually comment that neither suggestion is reasonable.

1. That is a claim made on the FCO website setting out the British position. If you refer to the reasoning behind the two sections, the suggestion is to simply set out the claims by both parties without commentary. You're seeking to comment on the British position, whilst notably promoting the Argentine position.

2. This is a claim made in the literature by Argentina. And yes it is an attempt to portray Britain as the bad guy. But its a claim made.

Simply set out the claims, suitably sourced, don't comment on them. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. 1) WCM, could you please provide a reference within the FCO website? I don't think they say that; it is well-established that Port Louis predates Port Egmont—e.g., it is acknowledged by Lawrence Freedman, Official (UK) Historian for the Falklands Campaign. Unless such a source is found, I agree with mending it by changing the word to "European", to better represent that POV.


 * 2) I understand that the purpose of this section is just to list claims. But it's only reasonable to list noteworthy ones, meaning that they are shared by a number of proponents with some credibility. It would be terribly misleading for uninformed readers if we mixed important arguments with loosely-connected facts or bizarre claims made in a few pamphlets.


 * I doubt Luna's book connects Malvinas with the British invasions in the way this WP article is suggesting; it was probably offered just as a reference for the latter. Most probably, the objectives were different in 1806, 1807 and 1833. To add to Langus's research, I browsed several Argentine sources, including the "Cancillería" document referenced in the article and the Ruda statement, and see no such reference to the British invasions or British expansionism. WCM, can you offer instances that may suggest noteworthiness for this connection?


 * As an alternative to deleting the line, I propose referring to colonial policy in the 19th-century (namely, the Second Colonization Wave) instead of British expansionism, removing the reference to the 1806-1807 invasions. Ruda does offer a sentence making such connection and, though I heard many times that 'Malvinas is a remnant of colonialism', I don't remember hearing that 'Malvinas is a remnant of British expansionism.' -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Again no, the FCO website is being revamped at the moment so I appreciate that you cannot personally verify at this time.  Furthermore, Freedman acknowledges his history is incorrect having been based on his collaboration with the Argentine author Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse.  We report what is claimed; if we get into the business of analysing or qualifying statements made by each side and amending them accordingly A) this contravenes WP:OR and B) as an encyclopedia we exist to report not analyse.


 * 2. You make a not unreasonable point about not including wild claims.  However, Detefani for example makes such claims and his work was produced specifically to advance the Argenine claim.  The allegation of British expansionism is in fact a common and strident claim made by Argentina.  IF that is claimed we should report it accurately not qualify it.

As to the British objectives? The 1806 invasion was in fact an example of the officer who lead it, disobeying his orders - he had no official endorsement. The 1807 invasion was in the context of the Anglo-Spanish war. 1833 it has to be noted had more to do with concern that the US would seize the islands than anything else. In truth, the motivations used differ from what is alleged now by Argentina, the historical record is very different. But that is what Argentina claims, so its what we report. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That the point doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny (and it doesn't) is why it doesn't get a look in in history section. This is far from the only claim in that list that doesn't stand up to scrutiny and it's far from the most illogical.

What we're discussing here is the points made by the sides today, which is a different matter. Neither side adheres strictly to sober and neutral historical detail when dealing with this. If Argentina tends to give more prominence to interpretations of history that fail scruity, it is because Argentina relies on the historical claim and counter-claim to prove their points. As the thrust of the British argument has long been for self-determination regardless of history - added to the whole possession is nine-tenths of the law bit - there is less benefit to the British in reinterpreting the history to suit the British side. Kahastok talk 12:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am trying to establish if these claims represent pro-British/pro-Argentine arguments.
 * 1) WCM, the FCO dates the settlement at Port Egmont in 1766, with no mention (as far as I see) to Port Louis. A zillion references will predate the latter, including the official (UK) one I gave you before. The statement made in the article needs a proper source. So far, we have only found sources to the contrary. If you believe the source has been temporarily lifted, you may find archive.org useful.
 * Of course Freedman's work is hardly 100 percent correct, but it is absurd to disregard it on the basis of it "having errors" because he once worked with an Argentine (who happens to be a reputed scholar). That's quite a sorry statement. Can you provide sources for Freedman having said that? I think you are misunderstanding him when he once welcomed corrections to his work, where he was most probably just being polite and not implying that the corrections were right nor that his work is error-ridden.
 * 2) Destefani's is just one book, and a singular one due to it being written in time of war by a military during a military regime. Even then he doesn't stress the connection as much as this article is doing, because he recognizes that British motives were complex and that the "expansionist" factor was basically to seek new markets, not necessarily territory. I don't see it working as proof of the noteworthiness of the claim. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: In his "Official History...", Freedman doesn't acknowledge it "being based on his collaboration with" Gamba, other than listing a book they wrote together within a long bibliographical list. That's why I referred to them working together, but maybe WCM can better clarify his words for us. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally Curry Monster, but we need a source, not your word for it. Again, it is not personal, it's just the way that Wikipedia works. If you don't want to modify the text, then a tag is inevitable. Please collaborate. --Langus (t) 22:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Point #1 needs either a source or a tag. Couldn't P&P's pamphlet be used here? This is a very good source for the British POV regarding the dispute, does it mention this claim by the UK? Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  23:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

1. The point is sourced. Its sourced to the Falkland Islands country profile on the FCO website. You should not be modifying British claims to favour Argentine claims, I will resist such a suggestion as I would to modify Argentine claims to favour the British position. Similarly, it is well known that Freedman has acknoweldged errors, the comments about the collaboration with Gamba-Stonehouse relate to Signals of War and comments made by Freedman at a lecture he delivered at Edinburgh University/.

2. Destefani's work was simply one example of many that make such a claim. Trying to nit pick about the details of one example is not helpful. Its a claim is made by Argentina, it should remain. Again I make the point, repeated as it was ignored, the allegation of British expansionism is in fact a common and strident claim made by Argentina. IF that is claimed we should report it accurately not qualify it. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1- Then would you please add that source Wee Curry Monster? Repeating that the statement is sourced but not providing the source is not helpful.
 * 2- The question here is if we should be taking a statement by a historian as an "Argentian claim" just because that historian is Argentinian. You say this "is in fact a common and strident claim made by Argentina", can you source it with anything other than your own word? Something like an official Argentinian source? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. It already is.
 * 2. I have already, Destefani is precisely such an example.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1- It is not . Are you sure you know which claim is being discussed here? Just to make it clear, it's this one: "That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement." Please go to the article and check, there's no source for that claim. Could you add it please? Otherwise a tag will ave to be added until (if) a source is obtained.
 * 2- Destefani is a historian as you well know, not a part of the Argentine government. The question here is: are we allowed to use historian's research as a source for official Argentine claims? If you think we can, what are you basing this belief in? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

1. False, the material is sourced and cited in the article, which can be verified at the wayback machine,

Quoting directly from this article, note 83, with emphasis added.

The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement. The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early nineteenth century.

2. Destefani's 1982 work, was an officially endorsed history, with 200,000 free copies distributed worldwide. It is a single example, which was what was asked for. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The material is sourced. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Just as a digression, I wonder where does Argentina claim that there was an indigenous population at the islands... Anyway, I believe that FCO source can be used, provided that we include a proper response within the Argentine claims, saying that the islands were not res nulius nor unoccupied at the time of first British settlement, due to prior treaties and the French establishment at Port Louis. Sources are plentiful; e.g., from the Ruda statement: En consecuencia, en 1749, momento en que intentó Gran Bretaña enviar la primera expedición, no podía considerar res nulius, sujeta a apropiación, a las Islas Malvinas. Recién en febrero de 1764 se produce el primer intento de colonización por parte de Luis Antonio de Bougainville, marino francés, que fundó Puerto Luis en la Malvina Oriental, a nombre del Rey de Francia. España se sintió lesionada en sus derechos por esta fundación e inició negociaciones con Paris, para obtener la entrega del establecimiento francés. Inglaterra envió por entonces una expedición clandestina que fundó Puerto Egmont, en 1766, en el Islote Saunders, vecino a la Malvina Occidental, en el lugar que Bougainville había llamado Port de la Croisade. España, mientras tanto, protestó formalmente ante el Gobierno francés obteniendo el reconocimiento de sus derechos de dominio. El Rey Luis XV ordenó a Bougainville la entrega de Puerto Luis previo pago de todos los gastos en que se había incurrido. La entrega se cumplió solemnemente, en una ceremonia el 1º de abril de 1767 en el mismo Puerto Luis reconociéndose así los derechos legítimos de la Corona Española a estas islas.


 * Regarding Freedman, I had already commented on that article in The Telegraph, and mentioned that previous book they wrote with Gamba. WCM, none of this is supporting the argument you offered. If the presentation at U of Edinburgh does, please provide a source, because I don't think we should take it so easily that a distinguished scholar gave a borderline-xenophobic argument dismissing his work and his past collaborators.


 * 2. I have already commented on Destefani 1982, saying that he didn't say that. Plus it was just one work, published in a special moment, thus not representative of current noteworthy Argentine arguments. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. No, we have two sections setting out relevant claims.  We have deliberately avoided commenting on either claim.  There is plenty in the Argentine claim section that is historically dubious such as the claim of the expulsion of the Argentine settlement in 1833, the claim that Vernet and his employees were prevented from returning.  I would strongly suggest you do not go down the route of WP:OR and including a critique of the British position.


 * I thoroughly reject your claim of Xenophobia, the comment he made was simply he relied on other works for the early history. Allegations of this nature are thoroughly unhelpful and I suggest you withdraw it.


 * 2. Sorry but do you actually have a copy of Destefani?  The book alleges that Britain has repeatedly invaded Argentine territory, its the central theme of the book.,.  Again it is just one example and I cannot accept the claim he "didn't say that" in good faith; he does; repeatedly.  It remains a theme in Argentine literature and to not include it, is to censor not educate.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1- I've added the source for point 1 presented by Wee Curry Monster which was not present in the claim (wouldn't it have been easier to just add it yourself if you knew the source Wee Curry Monster?). This of course raises the question: how long do these claims remain "official" if the site that listed them is dead or has been re-factored leaving that claim out? In any case, that can be brought up later.
 * Andrés: if you can reliably source the Argentinian claim you mention then go ahead and add it, not as a "comment" on a UK claim but as a claim in itself.
 * 2- Right now this claim is sourced to a historian (Félix Luna) and Wee Curry Monster suggests we add yet another historian (Destefani). Wee Curry Monster: could you point to which specific parts in these two history books it's stated that this is an Argentinian claim in the dispute ? Otherwise the inclusion of this claim simply constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYN and needs to be removed. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. It was already sourced, your edit was unnecessary - it was previously Note 83 in the article.  And the FCO website is being revamped, which means links are being broken temporarily.
 * Again I am going to suggest we don't go down the route of trying to rubbish national claims, it is inevitably WP:OR.
 * 2. I don't make any such suggestion, I simply point out its a claim made by Argentina and its sourced to multiple sources.  Please explain how you make the leap of logic that sourced material suddenly becomes WP:OR and WP:SYN and must be removed.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

1- No Wee Curry Monster, it was not sourced and this is a fact that can be easily checked by looking at my recent edit adding that source. Anyway, I don't understand how or why you would deny this obvious fact, so I think it's best to just drop it. 2- Ok, you claim "its a claim made by Argentina and its sourced to multiple sources" then please present the sources. Point us where in Luna and Destefani's books this claim is stated as such. If the claim is clearly stated then there's no issue here. If the claim was constructed through interpretation then it's WP:OR and WP:SYN. There's a very simple way to put this to rest and that is if you could please point us precisely where in those books that claim is stated. Just give us a paragraph or even a page number. Regards. Gaba (talk)


 * 1. Thanks Gaba, I will add the sourced pro-Argentine argument. By the way, WCM, I don't see such inclusion of Vernet's settlers not being able to return in the pro-Argentine list, yet there is an "answer" among the pro-UK arguments...


 * WCM, I sustain my doubts and my request that you support or rectify your comment about Freedman saying that his work has errors because it was based on his previous work with Gamba. I also sustain my observation regarding a xenophobic element when that connection is made, singling out Gamba's nationality, as if it would explain that there are mistakes in Freedman's historiography. As I am assuming good faith, I'm asking you for a proper source, so that we can consider that mentioning Gamba's nationality was a mere digression. But you are failing to provide it.


 * 2. Destefani's chapter can be read here (btw, the burden of proof should fall on those arguing for the inclusion of the statement). He doesn't use words like "expanionist", "territorial expansion" or none of the sort. Neither he infers what this WP article says. He mentions the connection with the Pacific Ocean and the mouth of the Platine basin as reasons for Britain intervening in Argentina more than in other South American countries. He refers to British mercantile interests. But, as far as I see, he doesn't say that Britain was generally looking forward to territorial conquest in South America in 1833. His use of the word "invasion" in some places (e.g., 1806 and 1807 of Spanish territory during Anglo-Spanish war, and 1833 for Falklands/Malvinas) doesn't imply that.


 * Besides, as I said, it's just one book, published under particular circumstances. On the other hand, having read Luna, it becomes clear that his book was just offered as a reference for the 1806/07 invasions.


 * This can be solved by rewording the argument into one relative to colonialism and British mercantile interests, so as to fit some Argentine arguments that include Destefani's. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Material was cited.
 * 1. That it doesn't is because you changed the Argentine claims section  to remove the false claim made by Argentina, substituting it with text that doesn't convey the full argument used by Argentina.  I missed that, so I'm now reverting it.
 * I utterly reject any accusation of xenophobia, I have given you a more than reasonable response, I am not going to respond further.
 * 2. I have a copy of Destefani. He claims something like 6 invasions of Argentina by the UK, alleging the British were continually seeking Argentine territory.  I don't see your comments as an accurate summary at all.  It seems to me that you're proposing to remove material that is accurately sourced, for reasons that aren't apparent.  Propose an edit in talk but the continued attempt to rubbish sources to justify removal won't wash.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WCM, the statement was not sourced, as that reference was used for another part of the article.
 * 1. If you believe that there is 'text that doesn't convey the full argument used by Argentina', we can discuss additions or amendments here offering proper arguments, without deleting a large portion of text and authoritative sources. You don't own the article. The text that you reestablished was unfaithful to the source given and the Argentine position at large, it was incomplete and outright silly. I discussed it in this talk page before editing.
 * 2. I think I was abundantly clear about Destefani 1982. To be more precise about the observation that you are now singling out, four of those six invasions were to the Spanish colony, therefore we should not infer that he meant that Britain intended to conquer territory from the emancipated nations decades later. The other two are, as he labels it, a commercial invasion in 1807 and Falklands/Malvinas in 1833. I sustain my previous comments. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The material was sourced but really I am bored with pointing it out. If you can't accept you're wrong about so minor a point, really I have better things to do.


 * 1. I don't believe your edit does that, Argentina claims as part of its justification for denying the right to self-determination, that the population of Puerto Luis was expelled, to be replaced by British settlers and that the population expelled was prevented from returning.  On the basis of the claim of expulsion and replacement the people have no right to self-determination.  I reverted your edit because it removed this point.  The accusation of WP:OWN is not helpful, the text that was restored is I believe a faithful reference to the original Argentine text.  I don't disagree that a claim that can easily be shown to be false is silly but Argentina has been repeating it since Ruda's speech in 1964.


 * 2. No to be honest, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.  It doesn't appear to relate to the discussion at hand.  In fact the discussion seems to be diverting down so many rabbit holes it is difficult to follow exactly what it is you're arguing for anynmore.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And now you're edit warring to force material into the article. I see you've learned from Gaba p rather quickly.  I've simply re-added the text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=547124845&oldid=547101206. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Wee Curry Monster: you are pointing to the source of a completely different claim and saying that other claim was supported by it even though there was no source added to it? Right.
 * You have now removed edits made by Andrés with absolutely no reason, I'd urge you to go read the sources and the claims and please self-rv.
 * 2- If you have a copy of Destefani then would you please point the rest of us where exactly does it state that is an Argentinian claim? This is the 4th time I've asked you to please present your source (not just "it's in the book", point precisely which paragraph/sentence in the book supports this claim) and you keep dodging the issue. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope a notable person?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/15/pope-francis-falklands-david-cameron

Or will his comments only be notable if they mysteriously reappear under his current office? Hcobb (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably none of them, unless arbitration is actually offered. --Langus (t) 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and considered significant given Wikipedia's position on recentism. If arbitration were offered, there is very little chance that it would be accepted no matter who the arbiter was.  And if it were accepted, there is very little chance that the Pope would be considered a neutral arbiter - any more than the Archbishop of Canterbury would be.  This does not appear to be anything significantly different from many things that we have seen before. Kahastok talk 16:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but there's not point in starting an argument over something that may not even happen, don't you think? --Langus (t) 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-wording of sentence
Basalik reverted an edit I made stating "meaning of sentence fundamentally changed and not justified. source added is a broken link". The link was broken but I fixed it (my bad, sorry) so that's settled. The sentence changed from: to I don't see how the meaning is fundamentally changed by my edit. Furthermore my version more accurately represents the original resolution, specially the last part where we are directly quoting it. In the first version the quote is wrong in two points: The word in is not present and the last word "(Malvinas)" is excised for some reason. If we are quoting a resolution we should do so precisely and the current version does not. Regards. Gaba (talk)  15:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and later added that all settlements between nations had to be peaceful and, in this case, "in the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands".
 * ... and invited both nations to proceed with negotiations to find a peaceful solution bearing in mind "the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"
 * "in the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands ?"
 * I agree. I didn't have access to the text you have kindly provided above and the link you used as a reference the first time was broken, hence the revert. I agree with the points you've made here, though. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 15:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Basalik, could I ask you to please self rv then? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and reverted Basalik's edit. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  12:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Could I also bring your attention to UN Resolution 1514 also called up by that resolution. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of edits by Kahastok
Kahastok just removed an addition of sourced information I made to the Argentinian claims section. The intro to the UK claims section has quite a big chunk of history from the pro-UK side while the intro in the Argentinian section is pretty much empty. Refusing to include this information in the Argentinian section is definitely not NPOV. The information I added is either not present in the article at all (like mentions to resolutions 3160 and 31/49) or mentioned from the UK pov exclusively (like resolution 2065 and the 1966 diplomatic exchange). In view if these reasons I ask Kahastok to please self rv. Regards. Gaba (talk)  16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Much of it was duplication, both sections need to be merged and placed in the general history section.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Slatersteven with the need for both sections to merge and clear out the "Claims" section to leave only the actual claims. I'll get on it as soon as I can but any help will of course be appreciated. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest given the contentious nature of the subject matter that unilateral changes without discussing in talk first are likely to be reverted on site. Far better to get agreement here first. I support the revert anyway for A) duplicating material and B) having a distinct POV slant.
 * That said some of the material in the UK section could easily be moved to the history section starting with the first paragaph wholesale. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (Disregarding usual accusations of POV etc by Wee Curry Monster)
 * The proposal is to remove everything in the intros of both claims sections leaving only one sentence "Supporters of the Argentine/British position argue:" and then the list of claims. We either do that or we allow for both intro sections' weight to be comparable. Presently the British intro to the claims section is ~1622 characters while the same intro in the Argentinian section of the claims is ~322 (that's 1/5th the length)
 * So, do we have an agreement in merging and moving all information in both intro sections into the historical sections leaving only the list of claims? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I will not be self-reverting, for the reasons I stated in the edit summary (which I'll reproduce here for convenience: The history of the dispute already takes up most of the article. Putting a neutral history and then putting a pro-Argentine history is not appropriate. Trying to convert every other section into a history section is not appropriate). If there's other things that are bad, we fix the other things.  We don't make it worse by adding more bad stuff.


 * I don't have a problem in principle with moving or removing at least some portion of the historical information from the UK section, but naturally will not support any specific change sight unseen. Kahastok talk 19:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, it's a simple notion. We either:
 * 1- make both sections comparable in length and weight (which is not the case now as the UK intro is 5 times bigger than the Argentinian intro) as per WP:NPOV, or
 * 2- we just move both intros and merge them into the history sections above, leaving only the sentences "Supporters of the Argentine/British position argue:" and then the raw list of claims.
 * Is there a reason you would oppose either 1- or 2-? If so, please state which one you oppose and we can move forward with the other. Personally I'd prefer 2- since it would make the article look a bit simpler and cleaner, but I'm open to modifying the intros to make them comparable if that is what you prefer. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What has length got to do with neutrality? Weight is about reflecting a range of opinions in the literature not the length of the text.  I can't see an argument of undue weight being sustained there.  That some material germane to the Argentina position could be added is not disputed, however, adding material that violates NPOV as you did is not about POV balance, when the material in the British claims section is neutrally written.
 * There is a general agreement to move some material, so I would suggest you start there rather than being so aggressive. You'll only put people's backs up and get nowhere.  Wee Curry Monster talk 09:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(No idea where that accusation of "being aggressive" came from. Anyway, already used to it...) Length has to do with neutrality when the text is not neutral, as happens with that present in the intro for the UK claim. There are key UN GA resolutions not mentioned (3160 and 31/49) or mentioned from the british POV exclusively (like resolution 2065 and the 1966 diplomatic exchange). In any case the article would be better suited if any historic statements where moved to the "Historical basis of the dispute" section (which is a mess in itself, but that's an issue for later) as Slatersteven proposed, leaving only the raw list of claims in each section. There's no reason to move only "some material" when there's already a section that can and should include all of it. Do you have an issue with this? Please be direct, are you going to revert on sight if I merely move the intros of both sections to the "Historical basis of the dispute" section? Regards. Gaba (talk)  12:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The claims section should be just that, a list (with a line for each claim as needed for clarrification. Both he intro paragraphs are history, and in the case of the paragraph in the British section not just about the British claim).Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed Slatersteven. I can get to work on it but only if Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok agree to not delete anything I do on sight (as is usually the case). To be clear: I simply propose to move what's already in the intros of both sections and merge that into the history section above. Any extra change/addition I might want to make I'll do it separately so as to be perfectly visible and distinguishable from the moving/merging of existing content. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  12:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Gaba climb down off the cross. Both of us agreed material could be moved, continuing to claim we haven't is utter nonsense.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, noting the same point as I did before. I am not going to declare unconditional support for a specific edit - by anyone - when I cannot even see what exactly that edit is.  And I do not feel that this an unreasonable position to take. Kahastok talk 21:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: On reason for Falkland referendum dismissal by Argentina
Argentina dismissed the referendum held by the Falkland islanders recently. In the discussion above several editors argue that we should mention how Argentina dismissed the referendum "as illegal" or "as having no legal value" while two editors oppose. The full discussion and the sources presented are above. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The RFC comment is not neutral and does not present the issue at all.
 * In various political statements, Argentine politicians have dismissed the refererendum as "illegal" or being invalid as the Falklanders do not exist, or because they are "squatters". Such political statements have no place in a wikipedia article presenting a NPOV.
 * The reason Argentina dismissed the referendum is it refuses to recognise that the Islanders have a say in the sovereignty dispute. The edit proposed by Gaba P obscures this, he takes a comment made by political leaders out of context as the "reason", which is misleading.  The current article is a neutral summary of the situation.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (Dismissing usual "not neutral" accusations)
 * The issue is quite simple really. We have endless sources stating that Argentina dismissed the referendum as "illegal". This is the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum as can be easily gathered from the huge number of sources presented . The German news media Deutsche Welle says explicitly: "The Argentine government considers the referendum illegal and does not recognize it, based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization." To make it even more clear, the official declaration put forward by the Argentinian Senate regarding the referendum states (emphasis added):

Mr. President, by the above, I ask my peers to join me in the adoption of this draft declaration, which rejects the illegal referendum that has called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in violation of the UN resolutions in the Question of the Malvinas Islands.
 * This is as official and as clear as it can get to support the statement "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value" (which means adding at most 5 words to the article). Incidentally, editor Wee Curry Monster has removed that information from the article 5 times in the last 12 days.
 * The edit was discussed above where it can be seen that 6 editors agreed to its inclusion, immediately removed by Wee Curry Monster. The edit furthermore does not propose to "obscure" information as Wee Curry Monster claims, quite the contrary: it aims at adding properly sourced, relevant and factual information to the article, which is being blocked by him and Kahastok. They keep referring to the edit as a "comment made by political leaders" when it's a fact that this is the official position of the country , as clearly proven by the official declaration approved by Argentina's Senate presented above. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  17:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The simple way to demonstrate this is a political statement - ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening. QED
 * The simple facts, Argentina rejected the referendum as it doesn't recognise the people of the Falklands had the right to hold it. Everything else is just headline grabbing nonsense. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wee Curry Mosnter: "ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening". German news media Deutsche Welle: "based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization". Furthermore, leaving out the reason, as stated by the country itself (an indisputable fact), because you believe "no law was broken" is a gross violation of WP:OR as you are well aware.
 * The simple facts we should add are those we can source: Argentina dismissed it as illegal as all the sources presented above clearly state. Also, calling "headline grabbing nonsense" to the official position of a country as put forward by its Senate is rather offensive. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, Deutsche Welle, reported comments from Argentina.  And btw the comment was which law was broken, neither of those comments relate to International Law.  My comments about "headline grabbing nonsense" relate to comments by politicians, the attempt to spin this as being offensive is a rather naked attempt to shut down comment.  BTW as I've previously pointed out, your obsession with the WP:LASTWORD will more than likely deter outside comment, since the RFC you raised will be perceived as a disruptive editor lobbying to have his version imposed.  Just as you've effectively disrupted previous RFC you will cause your own to be still born.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Deutsche Welle, reported comments from Argentina", that's precisely what I'm saying. "the comment was which law was broken", this is more of your usual WP:OR Wee Curry Monster. Not commenting on usual WP:PAs once again. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I realise English is not your first language, so I will simply point out that none of those comments actually relate to International Law. I could however modify my comment that "ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening" would be better replace by "ask which law is being broken and all that is received in response is loud shouting about something completely unrelated"
 * Honest advice as to how to avoid disrupting your own RFC is not a Personal Attack. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My objections:

I feel that if the reader needs to be told at this point that Argentina does not accept self-determination, then this is a problem with the article as a whole. It would mean that the emphasis of the article as a whole is wrong because we would have failed, by this point in the article, to put across one of the most basic points of dispute - that Britain insists upon self-determination and that Argentina rejects it. We have to assume that the reader will have read the article, and we need to think about the article as a whole rather than putting on the blinkers and dealing with each paragraph individually. Otherwise we risk ending up with an article that reads like every paragraph was written by a different committee. The solution is to fix the article as a whole, not to rehash the same points in every paragraph as though they were fundamentally new.

The proposal is that Argentina says that the referendum is of no legal value. It does not say under whose law it has no legal value. It does not say in what sense it might be seen to have no legal value. In fact, it tells the reader very little at all. It's a soundbite, not an argument against the applicability of the referendum. Even if I accepted all of Gaba and Andrés' points made in the discussion above (and I don't), it would still fall down for me because I find that they are not reasonably implied by the words "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value".

By contrast, Curry Monster's alternative actually makes the point in question, accurately and neutrally, giving the reader the reason for Argentina's objection.

And note that it is clear that change to the proposal is unlikely to be accepted. Gaba has insisted that no good faith objection to his proposal is possible and that we must accept it without change. To the extent that even this RFC was started after Gaba used it as a threat: he announced that unless we all immediately accepted his proposal as it stands, he would start an RFC to try and push it through over the top of objections raised. He decided, apparently, that he would rather put the article through the rigmarole of RFC than make any form of compromise. Kahastok talk 21:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Kahastok: about your first paragraph, no one is proposing that. I'm not even sure what you are talking about. The proposed edit is to simply add 5 words to the article (at most).
 * Second paragraph: that's WP:OR. It's not our concern how do international laws apply. Argentina has stated this as its reason for the dismissal of the referendum (this is indisputable) and we should mention it as such.
 * Third paragraph: Wee Curry Monster's statement can stay in its entirety. Again, no one is talking about removing information here, except you and him.
 * Fourth paragraph: please read the comments where I said I'd open an RfC and see it they agree with Kahastok's accusations: . Your bad faith representation of my comments is just astonishing Kahastok. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a reason why have been repeatedly warned and blocked for accusing editors of bad faith, Gaba. WP:AGF is not just a rule for the sake of having a rule.
 * There is absolutely nothing in policy, including WP:NOR, that prevents my from objecting to the edit concerned on precisely the grounds I raised in my second paragraph.
 * I raise those points in my first paragraph because nobody else is raising them. And I don't see how I can make it any clearer.  But I will try once more.
 * If we need to put these points, then we need to think about why we need them. The underlying point here - the disagreement as to whether self-determination applies - is one of the most basic points of difference between the two sides.  Of all the points that this article makes, this is one of the most important for the reader's understanding of the dispute.  If this key point is so non-obvious to the reader that we need any explanation beyond that covered by Moriori's point 1, it is because the article as a whole is failing to give it due prominence.  We should fix this failure in the article as a whole, rather than trying explain a vital point as an aside at an apparently arbitrary point half way down the article. Kahastok talk 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My position: The statement "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value" is faithful and acceptable. My justification: 1) It is clear enough that 'having no legal value' is written in an pro-Argentine voice, not WP's voice. 2) The law referred by Argentina is international law (meaning Argentina's interpretation of international law). 3) Even though the phrase is not precise, precision should not be sought at the expense of conveying the wrong idea. We can discuss the inclusion of additional precision later if necessary, though there is some consensus on not enlarging that portion without need. 4) According to several sources as those offered by Gaba, Argentina grounds that idea on (1) its own interpretation of international law and (2) on the lack of support from the UN Assembly, which rejected this method of resolution for this dispute. This lack of sanction by the UN is documented throughout literature, as explained and sourced in this talk page under "Sources for a reverted statement". The editors contesting the statement argue that the second aspect of the Argentine response—the lack of UN approval—is meaningless, so they intend to put, in an Argentine voice, a response that only contemplates the first aspect of its justification, besides the possibility of other vices that we are now failing to see. 5) In line with Gaba's position, I disagree with that alternative because it would mean, or at least it could mean, distorting the Argentine response based on a doubtful, or at least disputed, hypothesis (meaning the alleged invalidity of the second part of the Argentine justification). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment; if some content regarding the view of X Y or Z regarding their opinion of the Falkland Islands' referendum it should be attributed as the opinion of whomever or what organization says whatever. The weight of the content should be equal to the weight of the notability of the individual in relation to the subject. Furthermore, if X says they are against B, than for balance, I can see also including Y says they are for B.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On attribution: the statement is attributed to Argentina, in no way is it stated in WP's authoritative voice. On weight: the "individual" making the statement is Argentina as a country so notability is a given. On balance: the statement already includes the UK's view on the referendum, precisely for this reason. Just to make it clear, this is the edit being proposed. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Utis Possidetis Juris
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~phensel/garnet-phensel/Research/iowa06.pdf]

Utis Possidetis Juris otherwise known as Utis Possidetis Juris of 1810 sets the borders of states in South America as they were in 1810. It was agreed initially at the Conference of Lima in 1848 as an agreement between New Granada (now Columbia), Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile. At the time Argentina rejected it.

Questions.

In 1810, the Falklands were administered from Montevideo, in modern day Uruguay. So could someone explain why Argentina claims the Falklands not Uruguay?

Argentine rejected Utis Possidetis Juris in 1848, when did it change its mind. At what point did it accept the principal? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  13:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you do not intend to contribute please go away. I was asking questions of relevance to this article that address a gap.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WCM, I don't find your first paragraph about uti possidetis juris to be accurate, but I will rather focus on the question. There are two distinct procedures under the formula of uti possidetis juris. One is the preservation of international frontiers when a colony emancipates. By "international frontiers" I mean those between two colonies belonging to a different power, and those between a colony and an independent state. This rule derives from a more general rule of state succession, as indicated in the ICJ's judgement on the Mali-Burkina Faso Frontier Dispute. This is the form that concerns the Falklands/Malvinas dispute.


 * The other form is between nascent countries emancipating from the same colonial power. In that case, the doctrine offered just a guideline from which the nations sometimes diverted by mutual agreement. This would be the case regarding your question if we accept that the dependence of the islands on the apostadero (i.e., sort of naval base) of Montevideo implies a form of belonging to the latter. Uruguay didn't dispute the Argentine claims or claimed the islands to be theirs, which ultimately settles that question by tacit agreement. It's not surprising, given that the islands are much closer to Argentina, so assigning them to Uruguay would have lead to an unstable situation. The assignment used by Spain was explained by the very few apostaderos that existed in Spanish Americas (I think the second-closest one was in Havana). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What is inaccurate about the opening Paragraph. The concept of Utis Possidetis Juris was established at the Conference of Lima in 1848.  At the time, this was rejected by Argentina.  At some point Argentina must have transitioned from rejecting to accepting it as a principle.  At the moment this is a gap I've been unable to fill, so I'm asking for help on filling it.


 * In the ICJ's judgement on the Mali-Burkina Faso Frontier Dispute, both sides agreed to accept the principle of Utis Possidetis Juris as a means of adjudicating the dispute. Consent is the main principle of International Law, so as regards Utis Possidetis Juris the UK does not recognise it and cannot be held to it.  So it is not a general rule of state succession but one that applies when both parties consent.


 * In the case of Uruguay, Uruguay never disputed the UK presence in the islands, so if Utis Possidetis Juris of 1810 confers an inheritance of sovereignty upon Uruguay, then (per Metford, 1967) does that not favour the UK's position rather than Argentina? The islands were governed from Montevideo at the critical date and so applying the principal confers a claim upon Uruguay not Argentina (Metford, 1967).  As regards proximity, the borders of Spanish territory were much further North in 1810, Argentina did not invade Patagonis until the Conquest of the Desert in the 1880s so I don't entirely understand the relevance of your point.


 * I don't see how your comment of the apostadero is relevant, a naval command has nothing to do with the borders of administrative divisions from the Spanish Government. On that basis Argentina would claim all of South America.     Wee Curry Monster talk 09:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What is inaccurate in the opening paragraph is that uti possidetis juris was not "agreed initially" in 1848. Lima was a milestone, but it didn't introduce the doctrine in Latin America. You can read its real significance from the source you offered, and consult more detailed sources about the principle. Also, I don't know why you are saying that Argentina rejected it that year. Argentina didn't attend the conference, which doesn't imply that it rejected every principle that was put on the table.
 * When I referred to the ICJ judgement, it was not for the particularities of that case, but for the general statements on uti possidetis juris that the judges make there. You can easily find some on the "Summary of summaries" that is published in HTML, including the "general rule of state succession" argument, but there is more precision in the full judgement offered in PDF.
 * The comments about the apostadero have to do with that being the reason for your observation regarding a dependence on Montevideo. Montevideo was one of the few naval bases (apostaderos) in Spanish Americas, that's why there was a bond. All of this territory constituted the vice-royalty centered in Buenos Aires. Patagonia was not occupied by Europeans but it was part of the Spanish colonies. Anyway, even if we disregard Patagonia we find Argentina to be closer to the islands than Uruguay. Bear in mind that the observation regarding distance was just a side note, not central to the argument.
 * When the vice-royalty emancipated, the islands were included, in virtue of external uti possidetis juris. When Uruguay seceded, the boundary between Argentina and it were to be decided by the two countries, which used internal uti possidetis juris as a guide but not as the sole criterion. Neither Uruguay or Argentine argued that the islands were included in the seceding part. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe my statement is correct: The norm cascade stage in the development of uti possidetis – when states that have accepted the norm attempt to socialize other states to accept it as well -- began with the 1847-1848 Congress of Lima, which was the first multilateral effort that we are aware of that explicitly addresses the intraregional dimension of territorial integrity. p10 My question remains the Conference of Lima was rejected by Argentina, hence, at which point did Argentina accept the norm of Utis Possidetis Juris, when initially it rejected it? Again this is a gap I am struggling to fill.

I am also familiar with the ICJ case referred to and again it does not establish a general rule of state succession as you asserted.

My observation about Uruguay, was that administration was switched to Montevideo before 1810, I at no time referred to the apostadero. And to which you now add, that when Argentina and Uruguay separated neither considered which "inherited" the Falklands. Interesting. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The quote is indicating that the states had accepted the norm before Lima 1848. It is explaining why Lima 1848 was a milestone—it was the first multilateral effort to explicitly present the criterion as a general rule, not just one that each state could use at their own discretion. But the rule was already part of the customary practice. I believe some of the discrepancy we are having is due to a misapprehension regarding sources of international law. They are not only treaties, as customary practice and tacit consent are important sources too.
 * I already argued that Argentina didn't reject the principle, and referred you to the general comments on utis possidetis juris in that ICJ judgement. I never said that the the judgement established a general rule of state succession, please read more carefully.
 * Montevideo managed affairs in the islands because the vice-royalty's naval command (apostadero) was there. I think I was clear that this doesn't change the external uti possidetis juris from the vice-royalty's emancipation.
 * What I said is that neither Argentina nor Uruguay considered the islands to be included in the seceding part (i.e., Uruguay). I beg you to read sources and other editors' words more carefully, I see myself using a lot of time pointing out discrepancies between other people's words and your representation of them. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but no, Argentina explicitly rejected the Conference of Lima in 1848. It saw it as limiting its territorial demands.  Do you actually know the answer to my question?   At one point (1848) Argentina explicitly rejected this principle, so at some point it must have changed its position.  My question is when?
 * And the very principle of Utis Possidetis Juris would confer sovereignty on the region that administered affairs in the islands. That was Montevideo, so it very clearly defines Uruguay.
 * So how would that invalidate Uruguay retaining its claim, since neither considered it? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding your last question, when Uruguay got its independence, it was not that the internationally-recognized government in Buenos Aires was dissolved giving way to two governments that had to sort out each and every piece of their inheritance. What actually happened was that the state based in Buenos Aires remained and Uruguay formed a new one (i.e., it seceded). Therefore, what both states had to sort out was which part of the former state had seceded to form Uruguay. The islands were not included in those agreements.
 * The rest of your last message is, imo, just repetition of statements that were already answered. If you have sources to support that "Argentina explicitly rejected this principle", please provide them. As I already argued, not participating in Lima 1848 does not imply that. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've already referred to a paper by Metford published in 1967. I asked for help to the specific question that Argentina rejected the Conference of Lima in 1848 but if you don't know the answer to the question posed why are you commenting?
 * Where can I find information on what was agreed when Uruguay seceded? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know but I can recommend you a few WP:FORUMS where the sovereignty dispute is discussed daily... I'm sure they'll be willing to help you. --Langus (t) 17:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV problem with the detailed Spanish map
In the current Spanish map of the islands, not every village is given an arbitrary Spanish name that is contrary to the wishes of the current inhabitants. Can this be fixed please? Hcobb (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which bit needs fixing? I haven't touched those maps in a while. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to arbitrarily replace all the remaining English names on the Spanish map with unrelated Spanish terms. Hcobb (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm is unproductive. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah OK, sarcasm being the lowest form of wit I missed it. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This map Apparently from Instituto Geográfico Militar appears to match the names pretty closely.
 * Instituto Geográfico Nacional (Argentina) Has an interactive zoomable map of the Islands - you have to zoom pretty close for some of the names to appear, but this would seem to be the authoritative reference.( Hohum  @ ) 15:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the maps from http://www.ign.gob.ar/AreaServicios/Descargas/MapasFisicos instead of making up our own then? Hcobb (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright - simples. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's not covered by copyright because it is original work that combines together the work of map makers who are in disagreement with each other? Can Wikipedia solve the Middle East problem by simply drawing up our own maps? Hcobb (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if the Middle East was as simple as a copyright issue. Making our own map, and then adding place names from other maps isn't a copyright issue, since the names and their locations aren't copyrighted. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So the POV issue returns to making up our own map and passing this off as the position of the Argentine authorities. Which is all I wanted fixed in the first place. Hcobb (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a POV issue. Can I blunt, is it your desire to see the map with Argentine names removed? It is neither POV or WP:OR or WP:SYN, it is simply a case of producing a map from place names on other maps to avoid a copyright issue with using someone elses map.   If you have identified a mistake, tell me and I'll fix it.  Wee Curry Monster talk
 * The relevant policy is WP:OI, user produced maps have been discussed previously at WP:NORN and it is perfectly acceptable "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. " See also .,  just a small portion of the number of times this has been discussed and found to be acceptable.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to have a map with the Argentine names, then don't mix in British names as well. And especially don't pass this off as some sort of official map, when it's not. Hcobb (talk)


 * I agree with Curry Monster here. Which names did you find at odds? --Langus (t) 00:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Where is it I claim this is an official map? Straw man and irrelevant.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Identify specific issues and they will get fixed. However, I note even the Instituto Geográfico Nacional use some English names, like Darwin. ( Hohum  @ ) 14:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Large number of concurrent discussions
We seem to have about six discussions running at the same time. Could we avoid this in the future please? It makes it very much harder to keep track of what is happening. I suggest that we temporarily drop two or three of them completely for now - revert those parts of the article to the last stable versions and deal with any objections or proposals once we've finished with the sections being discussed. There is no deadline and there's no reason why we should feel the need to do everything at once. Kahastok talk 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the RFC on the International Position is allowed to run. Archives 11-15 are nothing but endless tendentious argument about it and it really is a wasted effort.  It adds no material value to the article.  I for one would be glad to hear some fresh perspective brought to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. For one thing, it could well resolve some of the other points without need for further discussion. Kahastok talk 22:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Kahastok, isn't there something else to say regarding how unmanageable this talk page has become? Some observations: (1) Wee Curry Monster reverted every single point that I contributed, which were plentiful because I entered several per edit, including the removal of authoritative references and despite the fact that I had cautiously discussed most the them here beforehand. (2) I am repeatedly correcting his misrepresentation of sources and of my words. (3) Several times he claimed about there being sources instead of simply producing them properly, which leads to unnecessary text in talk pages. Not to mention that argument that, given his failure to provide a clarifying source, can be considered borderline xenophobic. (4) How many times Gaba and I are repeating our arguments to him, after finding them disregarded in his responses? (5) With all due respect, are all the proposed debates and challenges efficient? For example, how is it neutral to question China's importance in the world but not Canada's? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I need to correct something. WCM did leave a few of my contributions. But I see he put back a sentence that I had objected and that I was correcting via one of those edits. Kahastok, what do you suggest I do now? Enlarge this talk page? Let WCM own the article? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I need to correct something too. The sentence I added a more or less verbatim quote from the same source you used.  Your edit removed part of that information, I can guess why, it happens to be untrue but that is what Argentina claims.  Your edit wasn't a correction, it was suppressing a lie commonly peddled.
 * As I demonstrate above, you repeatedly claimed something wasn't sourced, it was. You're also not representing China correctly and persisting with an unfounded allegation of Xenophobia.  And yes all you do is repeat, you never listen, consider another view and modify your approach to achieve a consensus.  As regards WP:OWN I haven't edit warred material into the article - you did. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was deliberately avoiding naming any names at all because I didn't feel that it would help.


 * The thing to do is either not to make contentious edits in the first place until the last set of contentious edits have been dealt with. If you really feel you need to bring something up, start a talk page section - without making the edit - asking that the point be discussed after the existing discussions have been finished.  If people forget or it gets archived, you can always ask again at the appropriate time.


 * Despite your wild accusations - your accusation of xenophobia may well be a serious enough personal attack on its own to see you blocked and you would do very well not to repeat it or anything like it - the large number of discussions here is not Curry Monster's fault. You object to Curry Monster's reverts - but that seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  You have made several reverts yourself.  Particularly given that WP:BRD is standard practice here, your attempts to edit war your preferred text into the article would not seem any better.  Remember that the standard practice on Wikipedia is that the article remains the same unless there is consensus for change.  You need to gather consensus for changes that you wish to make, and you don't do that by personally attacking the editors you're trying to persuade. Kahastok talk 18:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Andrés here: 1- about Wee Curry Monster's constant and senseless reversions of pretty much every edit that doesn't come from either him or Kahastok, 2- about Wee Curry Monster's constant misrepresentations of sources and comments (something I've been complaining about for some time now), 3- about having to ask him for a source multiple times because he will just say "it's sourced" as if his word was enough and 4- about him disregarding all arguments by constant repetition of the same responses, clearly engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wee Curry Monster hasn't edit warred information into the article but he has most certainly edit warred it out.

That said, let me refer to Wee Curry Monster's statement: "Your edit wasn't a correction, it was suppressing a lie commonly peddled". Leaving the bias aside, I assume you are referring to this edit of yours which introduced pretty much the same claim as stated below by Andrés. May I suggest a compromise? Regarding Wee Curry Monster's version of the claim, the key words "aboriginal" and "replace" are not present in the source, so they have to be removed. Regarding Andrés version, the bits "distinct people" and "external self-determination doctrine" are not present either so they would also have to be removed. Based on this, here's my proposal: This can be fully sourced to the Argentine official document and is both shorter and simpler than the versions currently up. What do you think? Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality.


 * Replying to WCM: (1) It was not "a more or less verbatim quote". I had observed that the statement did not follow from that source, pointing out words like "aboriginal" and "brought". You didn't say anything for a week and you didn't justify your revert. Could you please show us where in the source is this verbatim?


 * (2) BTW, among your many reverts of my edits, you turned the URL of that source back to its deprecated version.


 * (3) You didn't demonstrate anything. I took it that you presented Metford as a reference of previous comments regarding dependence with Montevideo and the notice of that first mention at Lima 1848, both of which I answered. BTW, Metford's well-known paper is from 1968. If there is one from 1967, I couldn't find it without a title. Please show me where does it say that Argentina explicitly rejected the principle.


 * (4) I see that you read Metford, in another comment you mentioned owning Gustafson, and you have judged Freedman... I wonder why you believe these WP articles are fairly neutral when so many of their statements contradict all of these scholars? You recently fought us on at least one of these statements, disregarding Freedman because (according to you) he based his work on his collaboration with Argentine Virginia Gamba. What about Metford and Gustafson?


 * Replying to Kahastok: I didn't know "one contentious edit at a time" was WP policy, sorry if it is, I need to look into that further. The problem here is that it seems every point is contentious and debates are plagued with unproductive behaviour that I indicated above. Both WCM and I reverted (in my case to undo reverts that were not explained properly) but reverts were not the behaviour that I criticized. What I observed was distorting sources and other people's words, abundant reverts without offering proper cases, having to be asked several times to produce claimed sources, etc. These lead to unnecesarily long debates. Unfortunately, it requires some time to read the above in order to analyse the case. But I think I can say that I haven't incurred in these practices as WCM has, and I did submit most of my edits to prior discussion.


 * My point was that there is a better way to improve the editing process than having the same but slowed down. I don't mean a ban, but help from editors who are not emotionally invested in these discussions.


 * Regarding the xenophobia thing, I must point out that I didn't say that WCM was xenophobic. What I said is that there is a xenophobic element in that particular statement of his (unless it was supported, which wasn't) and I stand by my words. I'm sure you understand that, not being personal, such a statement doesn't constitute a WP:PA. If WCM and you are interested (I wasn't the one escalating this issue) I'll be happy to explain. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Replying to Gaba: Thanks. I agree with your proposal, but feel that those quotes need to be clarified, which may be accomplished briefly by providing a reference like this. The purpose of those quotes is to indicate that the words are not meant in layman's meaning, but that they are a legal concept. In the source this is clear, as they are put in UN voice and directed to a public who knows the subject. But, without a reference, a casual WP reader may interpret that the quotes were written for other reasons. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that proposal. The claim is an expulsion of an Argentine settlement, replacement with Brits and a refusal to allow others to return.  That particular claims refers to a well know principle whereby an agressor cannot depopulate a territory, replace with their own people and then claim self-determination.  This is why Argentina makes those particular 3 claims together.  This is the basis by which Argentina denies the right to self-determination.  Gaba p's edit doesn't cut the mustard, it doesn't represent Argentina's claim.  The edit Andrés and Gaba edit warred into the article is seriously misleading in that respect.
 * The claim is simply untrue and the fact it is untrue is becoming increasingly well known. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the issue here is that two claims are attempting to be synthesized into one. Here's a new proposal that takes into account Wee Curry Monsters' mention of "those particular 3 claims together" and also Andrés' mention of "a transplanted population of British character and nationality": How about these two? I believe they make both points by Andrés and Wee Curry Monster rather clear and furthermore they are almost verbatim taken from the official Argentinian source for its claims. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled the people that had settled there not allowing their return, violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.
 * That the current inhabitants are a transplanted population of British character and nationality no different from the people of the metropolis and thus "not a people with the right to free determination".


 * The specific section is:

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

The interests of the inhabitants and not their wishes must be taken into account, as indicated by the United Nations in the different documents relating to the Malvinas Islands. This is so because the UN has taken the view that a population transplanted by the colonial Power, as is currently the case in the Malvinas Islands, is not a people with the right to free determination, as it is not different from the people of the metropolis. The British nature of this population has been recognized by the United Kingdom and since 1983 its members have the status of British citizens, in accordance with the British Nationality Act passed that year. If, in the case of the Malvinas Islands, self-determination were to be admitted in respect of the current inhabitants, of British character and nationality, this would be tantamount to allowing a group of persons from the colonial Power itself to decide on the destiny of a territory that is being claimed by another State which had that territory taken away from it by force nearly two hundred years ago.
 * The second comment is a repeat of the principle in the first paragraph. Its the same thing stated twice in a different way but the second misses out the crucial expulsion allegation.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if both points refer to the same principle in its core (rejection of self-determination) they express a separated set of claims by Argentina that should be mentioned. What is your proposal? Are you opposing or endorsing the replacement of both claims currently present in the talk page by these? Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  13:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I avoided commenting in the hope of getting outside opinion. I am opposing your proposal, for the reasons stated - ie it doesn't convey the information of relevance.  Currently the article repeats the same claim twice and I would propose to fix it by returning to the text that existed before such changes were edit warred into the article.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wee Curry Monster, the version you entered into the section is not verifiable through sources and will not remain as is, so going back to it is not an option.
 * Please, could you avoid a blanket opposition and be specific with your reasons? Otherwise we'll never move forward. Above you commented on how the claims needed to address 3 key points: "depopulate a territory, replace with their own people and then claim self-determination". Do you feel any of these points are not mentioned in the version I propose? What "information of relevance" you think is not being conveyed (that your version apparently does)? Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what part of the article you are discussing, what you are proposing and why. You are certainly not discussing my proposal to reduce the number of discussions going on at once (in fact you seem to have started another one).  If you will insist on playing the let's-see-how-many-highly-involved-discussions-we-can-have-at-once game, could you at least make it much clearer what the topic is? Kahastok talk 17:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving your unnecessary aggressiveness aside Kahastok, I agree that this section is not the place to have the current content discussion. I'll open a new one and move some of the relevant comments over there so as to not disrupt this one any further. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello people, I will admit I have not fully read everything you guys have been talking about, i've only briefly read over everything but I wish to speak out that The Argentine claim that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833 is false. What was there was military garrison of soldiers that brought some of their families with them. "When the HMS Clio arrived, there were 33 genuine resident civilian settlers; Captain Onslow gave them a free choice of staying or leaving; he applied no pressure on them to leave and indeed encouraged some to stay. Only four of them chose to leave" [Source] And Britain was pretty much reclaiming the islands after they had already left a plaque proclaiming the islands to be the "sole right and property" of George III in 1776. And in terms of the UN, the "Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions and that people should choose their own future" [source] or have I missed the point of what you guys are talking about? --Truthsir789 (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Thruthsir, regarding your comment, our beliefs regarding the claims of either country are irrelevant. We as WP editors do not have the capacity to edit articles based on our own analysis of sources and the statements put forward by them (much less if they are primary sources). The issue here is to convey the claims as stated by both parties as clear as possible, always ensuring full compliance with the sources. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  15:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed content has been moved over to this section. Let's please continue the discussion over there. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Relevance of International Position Section
See Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 11 & Archives 10 - 15.

Does the article merit a section entitled "International position":

1. Primary reasons for removal:
 * A) Weight attached to positions taken by other countries in the literature of the sovereignty dispute is minimal. Books on the subject devote pages to issues such as territorial integrity vs self-determination, or the applicability of utis possidetis juris but very little to positions taken by 3rd parties.
 * B) It is not a feature of any other article on sovereignty disputes.

2. Secondary reasons for removal


 * A) Positions of individual countries often do not reflect clear support for one country over the other.
 * B) The section has proven to be problematic for years. It has provoked numerous edit wars, it suffers permanently from recentism. It took a tremendous effort to get a small brief summary agreed and almost immediately the same behaviour emerges.  Yet it adds nothing to the encyclopedic value of the article.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Aren't RfC's summaries supposed to be neutral? Is Wee Curry Monster allowed to advance his position so blatantly?
 * Please note that Wee Curry Monster attempted to delete that section through and RfC about 2 months ago. The RfC was closed with the closing editor commenting "I'm not going to try to reach any conclusion from this RfC as it's been so badly organised from the start that there is no way I think consensus can be reached from it". Editors Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok deleted the whole section anyway with absolutely no consensus on Jan 29th. It took no less than 7 editors almost a full month to re-factor the section and introduce it back into the article. The reason the section is problematic is because these two editors make sure it is . Right now Wee Curry Monster added a NPOV tag after an editor introduced a minor change to the section that can easily be discussed in the talk page.
 * The international position regarding the issue (thoroughly sourced) is of clear importance as it reflects how the rest of the world positions itself in the discussion for sovereignty. And again I note: this is the same RfC Wee Curry Monster opened two months ago . Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  22:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I support per the reasons above. I note that in my experience it is not unusual for the least encyclopædic sections of articles to be the most problematic - a symptom of the lack of good sourcing on which to base a section. But in any case, having a section on this means giving the point far more weight than it gets in the literature. It should be removed.

A similar RFC was indeed raised previously - and the admin ruled it ended inconclusively. The section disappeared, and was shortly replaced with a short section. I note that Gaba's wild accusations of bad faith are very wide of the mark: his behaviour is disappointing but, for those of us with experience on this article, unfortunately unsurprising. Kahastok talk 22:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we going to have a coup de etat every two months? I suggest you two WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Langus (t) 02:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a fair comment. Neither a coup d'état nor an issue of WP:STICK.  This is the second time this has been suggested and put to RFC, and the first was closed without judgement of consensus during a fraught ANI discussion.  I believe that there was consensus for complete removal at that time - there certainly wasn't consensus to retain unless like Gaba you ignore half the contributors - but that is beside the point.  We ended up with a short section.  Again, I don't believe the content of the short section ever achieved consensus other than as a stop-gap, contingent on the outcome of a future discussion that - as it was always going to (this is why I opposed this as a solution) - failed to achieve anything.


 * There are now - again, entirely predictably - attempts afoot to lengthen it once more, by adding more irrelevant detail. Fact is, the weight accorded by the sources would suggest that anything on this point in an article of this length is too much.  It should just go. Kahastok talk 16:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The RfC question is: Does the article merit a section entitled "International position"? I support a section entitled International Position' after reading the entire sections in the Talk pages and the article itself. One of the main reasons people will go to this article is to understand the history and current state of the sovereignty controversy. I appreciate reading the different viewpoints of all the interested nations and the UN. I don't want to read an article weighted toward one side or the other, and I want to know why each nation takes their position. I found Gaba's and Marsha's arguments more rational, persuasive and less emotional than others'. Markewilliams (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Treaty of Madrid
The article states: "...The conventions were unilaterally repudiated by Spain in 1795 but implicitly revived by the Treaty of Madrid in 1814..." I just wanted to ask if someone know where can I find the text of this "Treaty of Madrid" that revives the Nootka Sound conventions. I would like to search for the content of that treaty to check what it says about the subject, but I cant find it anywhere. When I look for "Treaty of Madrid" on this Wikipedia, there is no treaty from 1814. Thanks! --190.224.224.52 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ALLIANCE WITH SPAIN The relevant article is article 1, which states:

Art. 1.—It is agreed that, pending the negociation of a new Treaty of Commerce, Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with Spain upon the same conditions as those which existed previously to the year 1796. All the Treaties of Commerce which at that period subsisted between the two nations being hereby ratified and confirmed.
 * For information, neither Britain nor Spain applied the Nootka Convention to the Falkland Islands. It was a claim that emerged in the late 19th Century and appears to have been generated by Paul Groussac a French emigre to Argentina, then incorporated into the Struggle for the Falkland Islands by Julius Goebel in 1927.
 * Does that help? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WCM, Greenhow (1842) states that the 1780 convention excluded Britain from occupying the islands. That's a least one noteworthy instance that predates Groussac quite a lot. Besides, we cannot say that 'neither Britain nor Spain applied the Nootka Convention to the Falkland', because that stipulation in the agreement was obeyed for more than half a century. Therefore, we can either argue that it can be inferred that the stipulation was applied, or argue that we don't know if it was. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever Greenhow may have stated, the secret article in the Nootka Sound Convention of 28 October 1790 states the following
 * ... respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question." (my emphasis added) John.St (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention John.St (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Link to Greenhow. Thanks I've never found an earlier reference. As John correctly points out, Nootka, if applicable became irrelevant when BA intervened. However, Britain never considered that it did, since there was the pre-existing agreement with Spain from 1771. And neither Britain or Spain ever applied it to the Falklands.

As regards the Treaty of Madrid it is debatable whether it revived Nootka, since it refers to trading agreements not territory as per Nootka. It is not universally accepted that it did. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Greenhow elaborates in this article. I think the relevance of Nootka to the dispute is quite doubtful, though it is worth mentioning that scholars who can doubtfully be labelled as pro-Argentine in regards to this dispute are less doubtful about it (e.g., Gustafson in his book published by Oxford University). One of my doubts is due to what WCM says in his last sentence. However, I do not share the analysis in John.St's observation.
 * Firstly, Nootka may be considered one piece of evidence towards the interpretation of tacit British recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands (although the main evidence are decades of acquiescence). Secondly, if we give credit to uti possidetis juris or, in other words, to the United Provinces as successor to the rights of Spain in the vice-royalty, then Argentina would play the part of Spain in the treaty, not the role of a third power. In his response to Moreno, Palmerston wrote: "[T]he United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself" (my emphasis).
 * These two mechanisms, however doubtful, are not invalidated by the secret clause. On the other hand, as I tried to say before but wasn't clear, given that Britain did not occupy the islands for decades, it either applied the treaty to this case or we don't know if it did (because the lack of occupation could respond to other causes). What we cannot affirm is that it didn't apply the treaty. I think what WCM meant is that they were not explicit about it, but tacit recognition is also accepted as a source of international law. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, utterly wrong, only the parties who signed a treaty can be held liable to it. As a successor to Spain, Argentina cannot be held to a treaty signed by Spain, nor can it derive benefit from it.  Argentina as an entity in its own right invalidates Nootka by dint of the secret clause.
 * Similarly even tacit recognition is debatable stemming from the 1814 treaty since it deals with commerce not sovereignty. Spain unilaterally chose to abrogate Nootka and whether implicit, tacit or otherwise it was revived is debatable.  Whether it applied is debatable but Argentina's intervention as a 3rd part invokes the secret clause.
 * The assertion of a British absence is also incorrect, the islands continued to be exploited for commercial purposes throughout this period. As a limited example when Jewett limped into the islands in 1820 he made safe anchorage with assistance from the British explorer Weddell who was already there.  The British absence is a myth.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor input since we're on the subject of Nootka: the last sentence of the first paragraph in that section has had a disambiguation needed tag for a year and two citation needed tags for three years. If someone can provide sources then please add them, otherwise I'd say that last sentence needs to go. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  13:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Gaba: I don't know if whoever entered that Spain repudiated the agreement was referring to Spain's declaration of war in 1795 (and its consequential suspension of all arrangements between the warring nations) or to something more specific that I don't know of. Regarding the 1814 Treaty of Madrid, it is disputed if it revived all of the conventions, as discussed above. However, if that dispute is mentioned, it should be accompanied by explaining the first of the mechanisms that I comment about above, which is exempt of such a suspension. I think it will be complicated to discuss this here, being there several open discussions and so many other doubtful points in the article that can be treated more simply. I can produce some sources but would rather wait before engaging in endless discussions around them. For example, Gustafson says the following in his book published by Oxford University. I leave it to you if it is supporting the "first mechanism" that I explain above:


 * Nevertheless, for the time being England had agreed not to occupy islands then occupied by Spain. The Malvinas were among the islands then occupied by Spain. Spain had surrendered its claimed exclusive right of navigation and fishing in the area in return for Britain's recognition of Spanish sovereignty over occupied regions. If Britain ever had claim to the Falklands, it seems to have been seriously compromised in this treaty. Hugo and Berrutt conclude that Britain had affirmed and guaranteed "the exclusive juridical power of Spain, excluding all other sovereigns from the region where the islands were situated." The Spanish population, which occupied the islands until 1811, further strengthened Spain's claim.


 * Regarding WCM's last reply, I see little merit in it. I never argued that a third-party was liable. It is empty to claim that a succeeding nation doesn't inherit rights. Actually, inheriting rights pretty much summarizes what succeeding means, as per Palmerston's words "exercise a right, as derived from Spain". My mention of tacit recognition had nothing to do with the Treaty of Madrid. I brought it up to indicate that not mentioning something in any subsequent treaty doesn't mean that the something wasn't applied or that international law cannot take that something as agreed upon. And anyone who is commenting so abundantly and strongly here, as well as reverting so freely, should know that occupation, in this context, means effective occupation as required by international law, which is not fulfilled by temporary landings, as explained in any textbook on international law as well as in the foundational classics (I can quote at least Grotius). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Except Argentina did not succeed Spain in a legal sense, it revolted and seceded from Spain. Rights in a succession are granted by consent, nothing can be transferred by such a secession.  However, Britain could not be held to an agreement between Argentina and Spain on transfer of rights; its a basic principle of law that 3rd parties cannot be held liable to an agreement between other parties.  Britain has also maintained a position that the Nootka Convention does not and never has applied to the Falkland Islands; since there was a pre-existing separate agreement over the Falkland Islands in 1771.
 * Spain did not recognise Argentina till 1859, by which time it had already recognised British administration of the Falklands. Argentina's succession from Spain did not legally occur till 1859 and when it did so, Spain did not transfer and recognition of rights over the Falkland Islands.
 * And if we're on the subject of tacit acceptance - 1850 Convention of Settlement.

Convention for re-establishing the perfect Relations of Friendship between Her Britannic Majesty and the Argentine Confederation.

Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, and his Excellency the Governor and Captain-General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, charged with the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both Governments; the Government of Her Britannic Majesty having declared that it has no separate or interested object in view, nor any other desire than to see securely established the peace and independence of the States of the River Plate, as recognized by Treaty; have named to that effect as their Plenipotentiaries, viz.:
 * Argentina in its own right declared an end to its claim to the Falklands in a treaty that settled existing differences. Compounded by the later declarations of an Argentine president stating there were no differences with Britain.
 * On the subject of what goes into the article. May I observe that this is an encyclopedia, it exists to provide the basic facts.  What it doesn't exist to do is to provide an insight into finely nuanced legal arguments and I'd suggest we don't go there.
 * And as regards effective occupation This taking of possession consists in the act, or series of acts, by which the occupying state reduces to its possession the territory in question and takes steps to exercise exclusive authority there.  Spain never excercised exclusive authority over the Falkland Islands, neither did France, neither did Argentina.  Vernet's attempt to exercise exclusive authority resulted in the Lexington raid of 1831.  The only country to have effectively occupied the Falkland Islands was Britain and that wasn't achieved till the 1850s.
 * You will notice of course, I said the British absence was a myth. I made no comment about effective occupation - the continual raising of straw men arguments is not helpful or conducive to an effective discussion.  Please also note - I commented solely about content.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Disregarding usual WP:OR by Wee Curry Monster I'd agree with Andrés that we should better hold on before engaging in a content discussion regarding this section at least until the two opened RfCs are done. I still maintain what I said though: we either add sources or we remove the unsourced content. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)