Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 18

Proposal
Noting the number of editors who have spoken in favor of adding this thoroughly sourced piece of very minimal information into the article is quite larger than the number of editors who vehemently oppose any mention of such, I move to re-instate the edit as it was before Wee Curry Monster unilaterally removed it from the article (added after being agreed by 6 editors). There's no reason why, after the issue has been heavily discussed, the position of a minority should have more weight than the position of the majority of editors who have commented.

Since the RfC I opened on the issue about a month ago was successfully hijacked by Wee Curry Monster I'm inviting him (or Kahastok) to open a new one or ask an un-involved editor to do so. I asked Scjessey but he has no desire of getting involved, which I surely understand. Regards. Gaba (talk)  17:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Correction, your obsession with having the WP:LASTWORD meant the RFC went nowhere. That you got no comment is because from an outside observer it looked like a disruptive editor who couldn't let it go.  You got plenty of useful advice you chose to ignore.
 * WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:MAJORITY and its about strength of argument. It is not the case that I and other Kahastok alone have opposed your edit, multiple editors have for the simple reason it isn't neutral and its not about informing readers its about inserting what is little more than propaganda statements into wikipedia.  You have no argument other than falsely claiming only two editors oppose it and claiming other editors support it.  I would oppose such a proposal based as it is on a blatant demonstration of bad faith and a complete misrepresentation of the discussion.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a comment actually by editor RightowLeftCoast who said the statement should be attributed respecting weight and balance. The edit proposed is clearly attributed to Argentina, weight is respected since it's only a minor mention and the sources are plentiful and balance can be achieved by also commenting on what the UK said. Of course you'll surely find this comment backs your position of censoring this information from the article somehow.
 * My arguments have been stated over and over again: this is a thoroughly sourced, minimal and clearly relevant piece of information. The fact that the majority of editors back the inclusion of that edit is indisputable, which of course you are fully aware of.
 * What you propose is that whenever a disputed edit is opposed by a minority of editors after it was heavily discussed, the minority's position should prevail. Why is this? Would you apply this same standard to other edits/articles? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:WEIGHT requires that all significant views in the literature are reflected in wikipedia's articles. Your edit doesn't do that, it picks one of many political statements that are nothing but rhetoric and seeks to state in wikipedia's voice a politically motivated opinion as fact.  You don't seek to explain to our readers, you wish to use wikipedia to make a political statement.   This is why your edit is opposed by a number of editors.  You repeatedly claim to have a majority of editors backing you, you don't as it happens, but even if you did a simply majority is not a consensus.  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've presented 14 sources all sating exactly the same: that Argentina rejected the referendum as illegal. You have presented not one single source stating otherwise. What other views are you talking about??
 * Are you saying that you consider the official document by Argentina's Senate on the referendum labeling it as illegal one of many political statements that are nothing but rhetoric? You do understand this is the official position of the entire political body of a country, don't you?
 * There's no statement of a fact, the wording is clearly assigned to Argentina, what are you talking about??
 * There is a clear majority of editors backing this edit which you are very well aware of. Furthermore, as per WP:NOCONSENSUS: "..a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit..". That would be your bold (and unilateral) edit removing information that was agreed in the talk page by no less than 6 editors. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I just read that again. Difficult to believe, but you really did just claim that a text that lasted on the article was a stable standing consensus after lasting on the article for less than fifteen minutes.  It is difficult to accept in good faith, given that you have been on Wikipedia as long as you have, that you don't know that fifteen minutes is nowhere close to long enough establish consensus (you're out by several orders of magnitude), and this looks a lot like an attempt to game the system. Kahastok talk 18:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This comment is exclusively an answer to Kahastok's comment above. I didn't intent on commenting here but such a bad faith accusation can't go without a reply. Kahastok: the text lasted in the article for three days after being agreed by 6 editors in the talk page until Wee Curry Monster decided to unilaterally remove it . That marked the fourth time Wee Curry Monster deleted that information from the article  by the way. So yes, I definitely call that broad consensus. Are we still assuming good faith? Kakastok, I've pledged not to comment here anymore so I'd ask you to please restrict your comments on content so I'm not forced to reply to your false accusations anymore. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  12:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we still assuming good faith? Well I'm trying, though as I noted it is difficult when you try and make the claim you are making.  But I don't think there can be any question in your case.  I hope that the irony of your accusing me of not assuming good faith, while at the same time repeatedly, directly and unambiguously accusing me of bad faith, is not lost on you.


 * Three days on the article, even if the point were not subject to ongoing discussion on talk (and it was), even if there was not an RFC that proved inconclusive (and there was), still would not in any reasonable sense constitute a prior stable consensus. In fact, even if we accept - for the sake of argument - the accuracy of all your factual claims, your conclusion there was a consensus for your version still does not hold.  If it did work as you claim, there would be continual edit warring on every article subject to dispute as editors would feel compelled to ensure that no text that they opposed remained on the article for even a short time.


 * If you think that your personal attacks are going to persuade me to support your position on the content dispute, you are very much mistaken. My objections and proposals as previously detailed remain in full. Kahastok talk 22:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So no apologies for your false accusation? You want me to WP:AGF after this behaviour of yours Kahastok? The point was not the subject of ongoing discussion. As anybody can check in the talk page the consensus was reached on the 19th and the discussion was revived on the 23rd by Wee Curry Monster after he unilaterally removed the information the 22nd . There was also no "inconclusive RfC" at the time of Wee Curry Monster's unilateral removal of the information. My factual claims can all be checked in the archives Kahastok, can you say the same about yours? After such an obvious false accusation I was expecting at least a minor apology from you, instead you're trying to hide that fact accusing me of personal attacks. You'll excuse me if this makes it pretty difficult for me to assume good faith. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  01:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In this respect you are both as bad as each other. It might be useful if you both walked away for a week or two.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem in stepping aside as I've proposed to Wee Curry Monster on other occasions. If he's willing to, I'd say we both excuse ourselves from the discussion and let other editors handle it as a sign of good faith. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Then simply step aside, I am quite happy to simply state my piece and let others comment. I've already done it.  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Very well Wee Curry Monster, I'm taking you up on your word. You don't comment on this thread any more and neither shall I. We can let other editors sort it out. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unjustifiable reversions
Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok have now twice blanket-reverted several additions I made to the article.

1- Added self published tag to falklands.info source. Wee Curry Monster had removed these tags previously but agreed to leave them there on a following edit. Now taking the opportunity created by Kahastok with his full blanket-reversal he has done so one more time. That site is undeniably a WP:SPS (unless either of you wants to challenge this) and the self published tag I added is not even visible unless you hover with your mouse over the cite number. Furthermore, several instances of this source are already marked as self published (identified in the text as reference [2]) which makes this particular removal even more unjustified.

2- Added templates   to both the British and Argentine settlements sections, explaining why I did so: "Large portions of the section are not sourced at all and more than half of the references present point either to Cawkell's book or the WP:SPS site falklands.info".

3- Added 3 cn, 1 quote needed and 1 failed verification tags which they removed with absolutely no reason given. Neither did they add sources where they were needed nor did they add the quote asked for nor did they address the pretty obvious case of citation fraud being committed in the sentence:

Several authors, both Argentine and British, argue by failing to mention Argentina’s claim to the islands in the Convention, he effectively dropped it by acquiescence.

If you follow the link over to Several authors you'll see that acquiescence is never mentioned not even by a single one of those several authors. Even more, not one single British author is quoted there.

I'm going to ask either of them to either fix the things that are being tagged for improvement or restore the edits that mark them as such. If you weren't long time editors I would have quickly reverted you as per WP:VANDALISM. Please don't take this to ridiculous extremes. Think about what you are doing and act like you were Wikipedia editors with the betterment of the article in mind. Regards. Gaba (talk)  19:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

British "permission"
Two highly controversial (dubious, to my eyes) phrases have been referenced by Curry Monster to Cawkell, pages 48 & 50:


 * "A second attempt, in 1826, sanctioned by the British..."


 * "...before leaving once again sought permission from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires..."

Given the high profile of such statements, would you be so kind as to transcribe the relevant text here?

Thanks in advance. --Langus (t) 01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would add the request for clarification for the sentence:


 * "Luis Vernet approached the British for permission to build a settlement at the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, initially in 1826[15] and again in 1828[16] following the failure[17] of the earlier expedition."


 * The references [15] and [16] (also referred to Cawkell pages 48 & 50) need a quote. Reference [17] refers to the first expedition as that of 1823 but the text says the first one was in 1826. Which one is it? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  15:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Still waiting... Be noted that your silence will be taken as a refusal to provide quotes. --Langus (t) 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Those statements are highly dubious, given that those alleged facts are not present in so many good thorough sources. One thing is to discuss the settlement with Parish and seek his support as an investor and diplomat, quite a different one is to request his permission as if Vernet considered it necessary due to an unresolved sovereignty dispute. It is not clear to me if Cawkell claims the latter. If she did, it would be rather silly to take it as encyclopedic fact without more support. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If she did, I would agree to include it attributed to her. But knowing Curry Monster, I'm thinking this is a misinterpretation of Cawkell's words. --Langus (t) 20:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please explain your purpose in asking for quotes? Are you alleging dishonesty, which is the inference I took from those comments?
 * Please note above that I gave an undertaking to refrain from commenting here, which I have respected. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, as I said, I fear misinterpretation. You're human, right?


 * About your last line: you made that promise on 30 April,, you edited the article 8 days later, and I made this request that same day. You promised to Slatersteven one or two weeks out, and happily that period has ended. As a side comment, it would be helpful if next time you also refrain from refactoring the article during such pause...
 * Anyway, you're dragging this issue far too much: can't you just transcribe the paragraphs and end this right now?? --Langus (t) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

On editing of Argentine claims
I'm making this new section and bringing some comment over from this one because that was not the place for content discussion. I'll paste the comments below. Regards. Gaba (talk)  19:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

(copying only relevant bit of my own comment) ... 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 (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 (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  (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  (talk)  13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have explained my opposition, the fact as usual you ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist doesn't change that.  I see no point in continuing to answer if you simply ignore any response, then claim you have had none.  Do you think for once you could let someone else comment? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The aggressiveness is definitely not helpful Wee Curry Monster.
 * I have not ignored your opposition, on the contrary I quoted your reason(s) for opposing in my comment above. The issue with your opposing is that is doesn't give us any way to move forward (saying "it doesn't convey the information of relevance" is a bit cryptic, wouldn't you agree?). I've explained that your version is not suitable and neither is Andrés'. Right now they could both be said to be committing citation fraud since they are most certainly not verifiable by the sources used. I'm tagging both versions with a failed verification tag, let's try to come to an agreement please? I'm not sure what you mean by 'let someone else comment', I welcome any comment by any editor Wee Curry Monster. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:57, 6 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  (talk)  15:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about this way of presenting the claims. Verbatim selection has a subjective element. Sometimes, official or otherwise noteworthy sources say something silly (e.g., statements about gaucho Rivero's episode from CFK). Other times, a phrase shouldn't lose its context.
 * For example, Britain widely recognizes that the French settlement predated the British, even Pascoe and Pepper do in their pamphlet, but we have chosen a peculiar sentence from the FO's website that doesn't. Perhaps the author was not careful, or meant it in approximate terms (the French preceded the Britons by only 2 years) or subscribed to the dubious claim that planting a few vegetables and leaving in a ship marks the beginning of a settlement. By choosing that particular phrase in spite of the rest, we are representing the British stance in a peculiar way (an "extreme" one, if I may). We could go further that way if we highlighted words from dubious discourses by CFK, for example.
 * Similarly, pro-Argentine learned sources know perfectly well that Onslow didn't remove all the settlers (though I disagree on qualifying the evicted ones as "not genuine"). When the text from Cancilleria refers to a population being removed, it probably means that a settlement of Argentine character was removed. This was done by removing the Argentine authority, as well as the possibilities of reparation and progress (hence the reference to not allowing them to return). That text stresses the removal of authority elsewhere, a comment that would be pointless if the claim was that all of the inhabitants were evicted. By choosing the 'population' phrase with no mention of the 'authority' phrase, and with no context from more-detailed sources, we are failing to represent the case.
 * There is also the possibility that the Cancilleria and the FO's webpages were not written well enough. Those are simply intros, not carefully-prepared legal presentations. Quoting their poorer phrases is not what good encyclopedias should do.
 * Please don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting WP:OR, just pointing out that this road is not leading to a good summary. Readers may interpret, as Truthsir789 did, that the pro-Argentine claim is based on an erroneous belief that Onslow removed all of the inhabitants and that they were Argentine creole. That is certainly not what a learned pro-Argentine depiction states, and is probably not what Cancillería meant. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, listing the claims like this is the most straightforward way to do it with minimal intervention from editors I believe. I'm open to improving this section if you have a better way to present the claims Andrés. Bare in mind that we can not synthesize information from several sources into one though. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  13:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrés, Argentina has since the Ruda speech of 1964 made very specific claims in an effort to deny the islanders have a right to self-determination. A) That the Argentine settlers were expelled B) their return was prevented and C) they were replaced by British settlers.  This is to address a specific point in the evolution of self-determination as a principle in International Law that an aggressor may not invade a territory, expel an existing population, which is then replaced by its own people to claim territory on the "self-determination right" of an implanted population.  The specific nature of the claim is that the pre-existing Argentine settlement established by Luis Vernet was expelled and that Vernet was prevented from returning.  The assertion that the islanders are an implanted population is a recurring one and stems from those 3 claims.  Much of what is in the public domain is confused by the prolific output of what I would class as misinformation from Argentina in its effort to advance its sovereignty claim.  Your interpretation of what is on the Cancillería website is pure WP:OR.  Were it a case of an expulsion of just the Argentine authority; a garrison that had been there for less than 2 months and who'd revolted and murdered their commanding officer is not a solid foundation for a sovereignty claim.  As you note yourself it does not establish effective occupation now does it?  Your suggestion to moderate the Argentine claim to what you interpret as being the basis, rather than what is actually stated is classical WP:OR and WP:SYN.
 * Like many things in the Falkland Island's controversial history, the historical facts paint a rather more different picture. Whether it was an "Argentine" settlement is debatable.  Vernet sought permission from both the British and Argentine authorities, he specifically stated a preference for a British garrison to protect his settlement under a British flag.  He also sought military resources from the Republic of Buenos Aires.  That the settlement was expelled is simply untrue; it was not, Onslow had orders that forbade him from doing so and as Pinedo notes in his own report, the settlers were encouraged to remain.  That Vernet was prevented from returning is only partially true.  Initially his return was encouraged and at one time was seriously considered for the position as a British Governor of the Falkland Islands.  Later when Vernet became embroiled in the Argentine claim for the islands, he was prevented from returning.  That the settlers were replaced by Brits is simply untrue; Onslow brought no settlers and the islands were populated by the remnants of Vernet's settlement until the 1840s when the decision to formally colonise the islands was made.  And whilst there was colonisation from Britain in the 1840s the majority came from what is now Uruguay.
 * Now I am open to ideas for presenting the controversies in differing positions but I do note one aspect of what you're proposing that is disturbing. Your edits seek to undermine the British case and to promote the Argentine case.  This is contrary to our policy of presenting a WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Break
Look, this is quite simple. Currently there are two overlapping claims added by Andrés and Wee Curry Monster. Both of the claims have issues with failing verification and are identified in the section by [not in citation given] tags. I've proposed two new versions of those claims as a replacement which can be fully verified by the official Argentinian source for its claims: Please state your objections clearly (enumerated would be best and please no blanket objections) and in what way you think these claims should be fixed, preferably by proposing your own version. Wee Curry Monster: going back to the old version is not an option since it fails verification so don't bother proposing it. Let's please try to stay on topic and please no WP:OR. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  17:49, 8 April 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".


 * As I previously stated, I object to this edit, as it is stating the same legal concept twice.
 * I clearly stated this was my objection.
 * The whole idea of a content discussion is to move forward, I have already explained why I disputed your edit so continuing to push the same edit, demanding I again explain my objections is unhelpful. Its also disruptive.
 * The only word in the article that is not in the citation is the word "aboriginal", which refers to an Argentine claim that the islanders are not "native". This we can fix; I propose we do so.  Example cite, one of many.  The claim that this cannot be verified is patently false.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wee Curry Monster: regarding your objection, the claims as I presented them put forward two different set of claims by Argentina. That you (think you) can reduce them to a single legal concept (incidentally, this would be WP:OR) is not a valid reason for either of them not to be mentioned.
 * Your version reads:
 * That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population
 * This is a synthesized claim which fails verification thus committing citation fraud. You can not verify this claim using the official Argentine document stating its claims and I have no idea what that article you presented is supposed to be used for. If you still sustain your version is verifiable, then clearly state how or present a new one.
 * Please please please please avoid beating around the bush Wee Curry Monster and be as specific as possible. This constant behavior of yours of being purposely vague simply translates into discussions being dragged far longer than they should. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And that particular message was useful, how exactly? Simply labelling something as OR regardless of circumstances does not make it OR.


 * I note that Curry Monster addressed your points very clearly and very obviously about the citation in your message above. You completely ignored him.  This is clear and irrefutable evidence of disruptive behaviour on your part, and I would imagine that similar behaviour is contributing greatly to the difficulties on this talk page. Kahastok talk 19:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh... Wee Curry Monster presented a source that serves no purpose as I see and I'm asking him to explain how he believes it does. He again is asking to use his version of the claim when I've explained countless times that it is not verified by the source used . I asked him to be precise about how he expects to source that claim I don't know how many times and again he was purposely vague.
 * So Kahastok: I'll ask you because you seem to be grasping something that I don't, could you explain how does the source Wee Curry Monster presented make his claim verifiable please? I'll await your comment hoping that, unlike the previous one, it helps moving forward with the discussion at hand instead of being simply another "Wee Curry Monster is right" type of empty comment like the ones you have us all already used to. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think that ad hominem is somehow going to persuade me that you didn't completely ignore Curry Monster, you're sadly mistaken.


 * Curry Monster said:


 * The only word in the article that is not in the citation is the word "aboriginal", which refers to an Argentine claim that the islanders are not "native". This we can fix; I propose we do so.


 * You responded:


 * Your version reads:
 * That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population


 * Either you did not even bother to read Curry Monster's message before responding or you deliberately ignored it. Which do you prefer?


 * Curry Monster's source very clearly backs up the point that he used it to back up (specifically the use of the word native, which the source ascribes to Héctor Timerman). If you don't like that, then tough.  That's nobody's problem but your own. Kahastok talk 20:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(No idea what "ad-hominem" you are referring to, so I'll just dismiss your baseless accusation) So Kahastok should I understand that this is the version you are proposing?: I definitely did not get that from Wee Curry Monster's comment. In any case, please do tell me Kahastok, how is that article Wee Curry Monster presented a suitable source for the last quite important bit "were brought to replace the Argentine population"? Also, and more importantly, how is this version (synthesized partially through a random quote taken out of a random article) better than this one: based entirely in the official Argentine document regarding the Falklands/Malvinas issue ? I'll await your comment. Please note I made two separate questions. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not native and were brought to replace the Argentine population.
 * 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.


 * Before changes were edit warred into the article by Gaba p and Andres, which I tagged for the NPOV problems they introduced, the article made two clear statements:
 * That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below).[61]
 * That the Argentine population was expelled by an "act of force" in 1833.[61]
 * Inline citation [61] refers to in the old version.  As quoted:

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.
 * This cite was originally added to address the specific claim made of an expulsion, not the reason for non-application of the right to self-determination. That there is a claim the islanders are not native (aboriginal) is not in this inline citation, I would agree, but it is supported by .  WP:SYN does not apply; since this is a specific claim made by Argentina.  The inline citation I propose to cite the claim made in the article is just one example, where an official from Argentina makes this claim.   The fix is rather obvious, add an inline citation regarding the one phrase that isn't supported by the original citation noting the original citation [61] was only ever added to address a challenge made regarding the expulsion claim and not this particular aspect.
 * That there may be a conflict is because you edit warred changes into the article that you now acknowledge aren't in the original - diff . Again the fix is to revert and sort out the inline citations not to add a synthesis of what Andres suggests is the more "intellectual understanding" of what Argentina claims.  Our function as an online encyclopedia is to report what Argentina claims, not to provide an analysis of what we think they mean.
 * Again I object to your edit for stating the same claim twice. In the same document, the same claim is repeated on more than occasion not a different claim as you assert. That there is a document setting out some of the claims made by Argentina is helpful but is does not set out all of the claims made by Argentina.  Examples ,.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (Dismissing usual WP:PAs by Wee Curry Monster. Same ol' same ol'...)
 * Inspite of Wee Curry Monster's attempts to complicate the issue, it's actually rather simple. There are currently two claims in the article: one added by him and the other added by Andrés. Both fail verification to some extent and have been marked with a [not in citation given] tag. Andrés' claim will be treated separately to make things simpler.
 * Wee Curry Monster has presented a random article to source a single word ("native") in his claim, even though he knows perfectly well this implies a synthesization of an argument and, even more importantly, that that article does not source at all the last part of his claim ("...were brought to replace the Argentine population") which is not a minor detail. So there's two problems with his version: WP:SYN and citation fraud.
 * The version I propose to replace this incorrect claim is based entirely in the official Argentine document regarding the Falklands/Malvinas issue and thus fully sourced. To make it more clear, here's the version I propose to replace Wee Curry Monster's version.
 * Note that I propose two claims: one to replace Wee Curry Monster's and another one to replace Andrés'. Simples. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Treating exactly the same point in two separate ways is not useful to the article and I see no benefit in creating yet another obscure split in the discussion as you proposed. There should be only one bullet point to address one point made by Argentina.


 * I see no synthesis here. That argument is simply spurious.  It is not, and never has been, original synthesis to draw multiple sources together if there is no novel conclusion drawn that is not made by the sources, as here.  The point made here accurately reflects the contents of the article concerned.  There is no requirement, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect, that any editor will demonstrate that a source makes a point that neither they nor anyone else has ever claimed that it makes.  It appears to me that the point as a whole is adequately sourced.  Which is not to say that it is perfect.


 * But your proposals do not achieve this. You stick far too closely to the original, to the extent that you repeat even their mistakes and poor English.  For instance, the word "metropolis" doesn't mean what the Cancillería thinks it means.  Taking the normal English meaning of the word "metropolis" - a very large city - the Cancillería's sentence makes very little sense at all.  And because you stuck to their wording so closely, your proposal also makes very little sense.  There is nothing wrong with using different words from the source and we certainly shouldn't be repeating their mistakes.


 * I note that I do not believe that the wording currently in the article credibly constitutes a new consensus. Consensus is needed to change the old version to a new version, and no such consensus has yet been achieved.  Trying to play to the crowd as in this message, and passing comments about personal attacks that do not exist, do not make such consensus more likely. Kahastok talk 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, there is no synthesis and the version edit-warred into the article should be (ideally) self-reverted. It was edit warred into the article and there was no consensus for it. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with 'aboriginal' is that, if presented in the synthetic list, it looks like if a key point in the Argentine case would be that a population has to be indigenous for them to be entitled to external self-determination, and that is certainly not the Argentine position. The fact that an Argentine diplomat once mentioned them not being indigenous doesn't turn it into a summary of that aspect of the Argentine case. I also have a problem with "brought" because population transfers, according to scholarly literature, are also attained through (for example) economic incentives (e.g., offering them jobs) and misinformation (e.g., telling them that British sovereignty is unquestionable). Saying that "the population was brought" doesn't convey that meaning to laymen.
 * Gaba is asking me about the following:
 * 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".
 * I would prefer to put "transplanted population" between quotes, to show that it is a legal concept and not an expression in layman's terms. Besides, I am not sure that the phrase "no different from the people of the metropolis" is worthy of a summary. And the ending may lead to confusion. It is obvious to anyone who has read about the subject that Argentina doesn't deny the islander's right to participate in their government, which is one of the meanings of "free/self determination". The text refers to what is sometimes called "external self determination", meaning the right to decide which state will be sovereign over the land they occupy. Isolating the phrase from this context may lead to confusion.
 * What do you think about the following?
 * That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

. Sorry but I cannot accept that proposal. For starters, that was just one example. Please verify for yourself with a Google search it is a common assertion that Argentina does claim only native peoples have the right to self-determination. In addition, of itself that is not an argument that would support a denial of the right. As I've pointed out repeatedly Argentina's claim depends on 3 separate assertions; the expulsion, prevention of return and replacement. This does not accurately reflect what is claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC) To also add, the claim that Argentina doesn't deny they have a right or role in Government, given recent statements about the referendum is clearly unsustainable. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok: could you please present your source for "...were brought to replace the Argentine population"? I must've asked for this 4 times now. Perhaps acknowledging that you have none and agreeing to re-factor the claim based on actual existing sources would be a sensible idea at this point? Also, Wee Curry Monster you need to understand that not having your written permission to edit an article does not equal "no consensus". Please, could you give WP:OWN a thorough read?


 * So back to content once again. How about this (yet another proposal to merge into one single heavily sourced claim):


 * That the principle of self-determination does not apply since in 1833 the United Kingdom expelled the people that had settled there not allowing their return, proceeding to bring its own colonists to the islands; which makes the current inhabitants a "transplanted population" of British character and nationality.


 * I've used the source Wee Curry Monster presented above and this version also mentions the 3 key points Wee Curry Monster wants to mention. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  01:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, I don't think that sentence summarizes the aspect of the Argentine case that it intends to represent. The documents explain more, offering context for some of those words. For example, as I argue above, "bring[ing] its own colonists" (in layman's terms) is not what makes a "transplanted population", because this can be achieved through more-subtle policy. The document puts "bringing" in parallel with immigration control and then says: To date, it is the colonial government that decides the composition of the population of the territory. It is a very small population, whose demographics do not naturally grow and depend on the economic and administrative needs of the colonial government. That provides a context to understand that "bring[ing] its own colonists" doesn't mean forcing a bunch of people, as other sources further clarify. On the other hand, the quid about the nature of the population is not if a handful of gauchos were expelled or not, or if Argentines would have been kicked out at gunpoint had they landed on the shore. Let's not try to pinpoint isolated sentences that may forward that misunderstanding. In reality, the quid has to do with policy that deeply affected the composition of the population, such as offering jobs to British citizens and undermining Argentina's possibilities of doing the same thing. For example, see these other paragraphs from the source given: The U.S. force [USS Lexington] destroyed the facilities and defences in place. The attack deeply affected the community and many islanders went back to the continent out of fear of further attacks. However, the settlement was not abandoned and new authorities were sent from Buenos Aires. Under these circumstances, Great Britain sent two warships to the Malvinas Islands with orders to seize them. On 3 January 1833 the United Kingdom expelled the Argentine authorities, the military garrison and their families, forbidding their return. Since the illegal occupation, the U.K. Government started a process of settling families of British origin on the Malvinas Islands, preventing Argentine immigration and purchase of land. 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 British inhabitants of the islands undeniably enjoy civil and political rights but they do not have the right to decide the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The current inhabitants of the islands are British but the territory where they live is not. Argentina requests dialogue but does not intend to take away their identity or change their way of life. By the way, we are not talking about replacing the next bullet point, about territorial integrity, by this, right? That point, or a similar one, definitely has to be included. It is a key point, that refers to concepts from the UN Charter and, among other things, explains why the above-mentioned migratory policy was illegitimate (according to Argentina). Mentions (one or many) about the islanders not being indigenous doesn't mean that Argentina claims it to be a requirement for self-determination at large, external or not. In any case, they mention it to discard the classical de-colonization process of remedial self-determination. A use of the indigenous factor deserves such an explanation. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrés: I understand what you say about context, but we need to somehow summarize all of that information into one (or more) relatively small bullet points since that is the format of the section and changing it now would be a daunting task (just look at what we are struggling with one or two points) Could I ask you to present a version of the claim(s) you propose (it needs not be just one)? And no, the idea is to replace the two claims in the section that fail verification, the rest of the claims are good as far as I can tell. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  11:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't propose to respond to the above in detail because it is altogether too long and I'd be here all day. One of the main reasons why this talk page is so hard to follow is because people keep posting 3kB behemoth after 3k behemoth - see WP:FILIBUSTERS and WP:TLDR. But I would like to suggest one of Gaba's points above seems to take the opinion that a consensus is whatever you can edit-war into the article. No. And I would suggest that we need a rather higher standard of consensus on a talk page that is as convoluted as this one than we would if things were easier to follow.

There is no consensus, and has not been at any point in the last month, for any particular replacements to these points in the article. The status quo does not in any credible sense constitute a consensus. And if no new consensus can be found, the proper procedure would be to revert to the last consensus version. Kahastok talk 17:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I take Kahastok's point and will try to be brief. We see here an attempt to deny that Argentina claims the population was expelled.  Taking into account the comment about using authorative sources:

Nevertheless this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become the myth in Argentina. Gustafson, The Sovereignty Dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, p.26.
 * I will re-iterate I am willing to see a rewrite where warranted, to add cites to facts that are challenged. What I am unwilling to see is the article rewrittent to falsify what Argentina in fact claims and that is what these proposals are doing.  We had a very brief summary that covered the claims adequately, this should be restored.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (No Kahastok, I do not imply a consensus emerges from edit warring (of course you know this) but neither does your or Wee Curry Monster's written permission equal "consensus" (as you apparently do not realize) Perhaps a thorough read of WP:OWN would come in handy to you too).


 * I see both of you are still peddling reverting to the previous version. It would seem neither of you grasp the fact that the previous version is not verifiable through sources . What part of this are you two not comprehending? I've asked both of you to come up with a source for the very important bit "...were brought to replace the Argentine population" about five times now. Do you plan on playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for much longer?
 * We have two very clear sources for Argentina's claim regarding the applicability of self-determination: and . These are official documents put forward by that country and there is absolutely no reason to attempt to synthesize a claim from any other source. I'm mentioning the second one because Wee Curry Monster presented it, but I believe the first one should be more than enough.
 * Again, we have the most perfect sources for the Argentine claim we could hope for: documents stating the Argentine claims put forward by Argentina itself. I say we all present a version of the claim(s) based on these sources and move forward from there on.


 * Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok: please please please enough with the "let's go back to the previous version" thing. It fails verification and needs to be re-factored. If you are not willing to move an inch away from that version of the claim and will neither present a suitable source to at least synthesize it, then you'd do well to excuse yourselves from the rewriting process since you are only blocking the improvement of the article. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  20:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I see very little in that message that hasn't already been answered - from the claim of synthesis (that doesn't exist) to the claim that neither Curry Monster nor I are "not willing to move an inch away" from the previous consensus version when both of us have independently stated willingness to improve the point. It's very difficult to make progress here when you so completely ignore other people.  Your habit of assigning people positions that run directly counter to those that they have argued makes consensus much harder to find.


 * If you genuinely believe that a lack of new consensus here would mean that your preferred version rather than the last stable version remains in the article, it is you, not me, who needs to look back at WP:OWN. Kahastok talk 20:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh, Kahastok: 1- my proposed version is not in the article so it definitely can not "remain". At least make the effort to get your facts straight before throwing random accusations around, would you? 2- For the billionth time you have made an empty comment that brings absolutely nothing to the discussion and once again you've played the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card when I asked you for a simple source . You don't seriously believe other editors are fooled by this, do you?


 * Furthermore I proposed that each of us presented a preferred version and you have neither comment on that nor presented any version, so I'll just go ahead and assume you'll back any version Wee Curry Monster presents to save us all some time.


 * I'll start a new subsection and present my proposed version there. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  00:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Guys, when it is said that a population was expelled, it is to summarize the fact that, before January 1833, there was an Argentine settlement and, after that date, there was not one anymore, plus Argentina was prevented from settling again. The rest of the sourced text are trying to summarize this situation, as per the fragments I copied, and other sources further clarify. This was done by force, Gustafson and others concur with that. The quotation brought by WCM only denies acts of violence, which according to Gustafson are a myth in Argentina. The erroneous belief that there was violence is not extended around here imho, but we could refer to it if you would like to. However, please don't present it as if it were a noteworthy claimed point, because it isn't.


 * You are trying to make it look similar to other cases where self-determination is rejected on the basis of a mass of people having been removed, but that is not Argentina's point. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But that is precisely Argentina's point. Argentina claims that a settled Argentine settler population was expelled to be replaced by British settler population.  You are attempting to portray this claim as something different.  As Gustafson and other sources point out, this is in fact simply untrue but the Argentine basis for claiming self-determination doesn't apply is dependent upon it.
 * In addition, Argentine claims that people from Argentina were prevented from settling or returning. This is also untrue and the historical record shows it is untrue.
 * In March 1833, Vernet sent Matthew Brisbane to the Falkland Islands to restore control over his assets in the Falklands.
 * After Brisbane's murder Lt Smith and his son looked after Vernet's assets and provided regular accounts.
 * Samuel Fisher Lafone imported a large number of Gaucho's from Urguguay and Argentina in the 1840s - 1850s
 * Admiral Laserre, from Argentina, notes a number of settlers of Argentine origin living in the islands in the 1860s
 * There was nothing to prevent Argentine citizens settling in the islands, they simply didn't want to.
 * Now having addressed this again, I am asking you directly why you wish to insert a text that claims something that differs from the official Argentine position?
 * As an aside, the whole rambling discussion has become dysfunctional and impossible to follow. I propose to revert to the last consensus version of the article and proceed to a structured discussion as to how this should be rewritten.  Are you agreeable to that Andrés?  Lets eat the elephant one bite at a time eh? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Our own historical analysis is of no value here in WP Wee Curry Monster (you've been told this a number of times already). We abide by what the sources say. The official sources for the Argentine claim are clear and your attempts to synthesize a set of claims through your own perception of "truths" is of course irrelevant.


 * There is no need to revert anything, we simply need to agree on a new version of the claims that currently fail verification and be done with it. You've had many many opportunities to propose a version and you refused each time. Andrés and I have so far proposed several new versions 100% verified by the sources which you (and of course Kahastok) keep blocking. My proposed version below is based completely on the Argentine official documents for its claims and unless another version is presented or a valid objection raised, I'll be replacing the current claims with that one. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  15:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit is not acceptable because it does not accurately reflect what Argentina claims. WP:WEIGHT requires all significant views to be included in the article.  I am well aware you will fight tooth and nail to keep any material that contradicts what Argentina claims out of the article. You reliance solely on a single source isn't acceptable.  No one is trying to block anything and as noted above your continued accusations ain't helping. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@WCM, as I've been saying since the beginning, what Argentina claims is not what you say it claims. When it refers to the removal and the prohibition to return of an Argentine population, it is not referring to some private citizens acting individually, but to a settlement of Argentine character, meaning a social unit that responded to an Argentine authority and thus recognized itself as under the sovereignty of the Argentine state. This is abundantly clear. It even responds to common sense, because the case cannot reasonably rest on the removal or not of five gauchos who were minding their own business. Not surprisingly, it doesn't. So please let's not do WP:OR or WP:SYN to confuse readers leading them to think that the quid of the matter is that. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And I have to point out, bemused, that isn't the edit that is proposed, nor what actually happened and at this point I haven't a clue what you actually propose.
 * What I think you're proposing is that the entire case depends on the expulsion of a garrison, that was inserted over British protests in 1832, that was only there for 2 months? That it doesn't depend on the (false) claim of the expulsion of Vernet's settlement (which is what I presume you mean by private citizens) as virtually everyone else seems to think.  Do I have you correct?  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No. These distinctions that you are making, more precisely "Vernet's settlement" vs. "garrison" and "genuine settlers" vs. "not genuine", do not have the meaning that you are attributing to them, which (afaik) originates from a confusion that emanates from Pascoe and Pepper.
 * There was an Argentine settlement at the islands, founded by Vernet and commanded by him until 1832, which continued with that "garrison". By the way, what you call a "garrison" was analogous to a presidio crew, meaning a frontier militarized population in accordance to the requirements for effective occupation. The Spanish used it a lot for that purpose, and for supporting frontier populations, as was most presumably the case in Port Louis given the consequences of the Lexington attack. Removing this "garrison" was no minor thing, as it removed the Argentine character of the settlement and the possibilities of repair and progress under Argentine authority.
 * On the other hand, the fact that many settlers were foreign doesn't lessen the support they gave to the Argentine case by settling given that they were responding to Argentine authority when they respected, e.g., land rights and titles emanating from Buenos Aires (I can quote Vattel on this). Pascoe and Pepper claim that Vernet sought permission from Britain on the basis that he supposedly had the land grants "countersigned" by the British consul. But "countersignment" means validation of a document, it's authenticity mostly. Such act (if real) could even be interpreted as the consul approving the right of Buenos Aires to grant land. But to derive that Vernet's settlement was not Argentine is absurd and contradicts authoritative sources. Please look up "countersign" in a dictionary.
 * To recap, there was an Argentine settlement and it was forcefully removed, regardless of some individuals staying or of the fact that many were foreign. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the sources are clear in this. This has nothing to do with Pascoe and Pepper, which despite your repeated assertion is not the source.  Since the Ruda speech of 1964, Argentina has been claiming the islanders do not have a right to self-determination on the (false) premise that an Argentine settlement was expelled in 1833.  This is what Gustafson dismisses as myth.  As this is what is claimed, it is what we should report. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrés, don't waste your time. Wee Curry Monster understands the point perfectly, he's just purposely tiring you. As I stated below, what is claimed by Argentina can and should be obtained from the official documents presenting said claims developed by Argentina itself. I know this is painfully obvious, but Wee Curry Monster seems to be determined to make us all waste as much time as possible pretending not to grasp such a simple concept.
 * So once again: if no valid objection is raised (ie: one backed by sources not just WP:OR or personal perceptions of "truths") I'll be replacing the claims that fail verification with the ones proposed below. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  22:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Gaba, please do so. I hope I was clear (as the Argentine explanations at large are) that expelling an Argentine settlement is not synonymous of sending away all of its occupants. BTW, in case someone is still falling to the repeated abuse of citation that we are being subjected to, I will offer the context of the Gustafson sentence copied by WCM, to prove my previous remark when I said that the "myth" is not the forcible eviction of an Argentine occupation but the drama with which, according to Gustafson, the incident is portrayed in Argentina: The fact that shots were not fired does not mean force was not used. The most successful use of force is to show it, not actually to fight. Nevertheless, this incident is not the British forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become the myth in Argentina. Argentines have waxed eloquent about the British use of force in 1833. Rhetoric about the islands' history has often been needed to create drama, which has in fact been lacking. [...] The use of force by the British on the Falkland Islands in 1833 was less dramatic than later Argentine rhetoric has suggested. The change in the island's status afterward was significant. Needless to say, Gustafson's comments don't imply that the Argentine claim rests on this "myth" of there being a dramatic ejection of people. Neither does he imply that the "myth" should displace more-accurate accounts about the 1833 eviction that are present in Argentine discourses such as our sources. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of Gustafson's comments about historical events, as I am aware of a number of authors commenting on these events. Gaba p has spent more than a year doing his level best to suppress this fact on wikipedia, or to obscure the fact that the settlement was not expelled by misquoting various authors.  The fact remains that Argentina in claiming self-determination does not apply relies on the (false) claim that the Argentine settlers were expelled.  The point Gustafson makes is actually that the significance of the events of January 1833 on the competing sovereignty claims is unclear.  The attempt at semantics that expelling an Argentine settlement is not synonymous of sending away all of its occupants is not a compelling argument, since that is precisely what is claimed.  Apart from anything else no one in the settlement was expelled; 4 chose to leave voluntarily the rest remained.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (Again, dismissing usual Wee Curry Monster WP:PAs.)
 * Wee Curry Monster: once again, we abide by sources. Absolutely every edit of mine is backed 100% by reliable sources. Your habit of presenting your own WP:OR and perceptions of "truths" and "facts" as a suitable replacement for sources is quite disruptive.
 * Seeing that no valid objection nor any source to back the statement "...were brought to replace the Argentine population" has been provided (even though it was asked no less than 6 times), I'll go ahead and replace the claims in place that fail verification with the ones proposed below. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  14:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your conduct speaks for itself, that there is any problems is due to you edit warring to impose a false view. It is not 100% back up by sources, you are taking one source and misquoting it.  My conducts about your conduct can easily be verified from your contribution history. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Break 2
Now that the block imposed on the article is lifted I'll once again ask Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok for either: a reason as to why they oppose the addition of the proposed version of the claim or a source to back the claim they both support.

The reason for opposal needs to be based on sources. You can't just say "the claim does not represent what Argentina says" with absolutely nothing to support your statement other than your own word. The claims are taken from two official Argentine documents stating those claims so it really doesn't get any more official than that. If you feel these sources are being misquoted present your evidence. Again Wee Curry Monster: your word is not enough.

Regarding the source that I asked both of you for about 7 times now, here's one more request. If you wish to back the claim as presented in the article, you need to back the statement "...were brought to replace the Argentine population". Remember: your word is not enough Wee Curry Monster (neither is being backed by Kahastok).

Apcbg: since you've reverted twice the last addition of properly sourced content I'll ask you to please join the discussion and state your arguments. Otherwise please abstain from making unconstructive reverts to the article.

I've asked the editor who blocked the article to please take a look at this discussion and open a neutral RfC. It would be great if we could spare him the time and effort and come to a sensible agreement ourselves. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Taking it to RFC is fine by me, I will simply note that sources were provided, statements were supported but you simply ignored them and (falsely) alleged WP:OR and WP:SYN. I can't see any content discussion being fruitful when you raise multiple issues simultaneously, continually misrepresent what editors have commented upon and simply repeat yourself over and again.  I would welcome a neutral RFC from a neutral 3rd party and request that any attempt to WP:FILIBUSTER with WP:LASTWORD is dealt with.   Wee Curry Monster talk 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing that once again no source was presented and no valid objection raised but still the block remains, it would appear an RfC is the only way to go. I'll see what Dpmuk says and otherwise I'll request a neutral 3rd party admin to take a look at the discussion.
 * You're of course free to attack me all you want Wee Curry Monster (god knows you've never needed my permission), but the RfC would be far more productive if you could limit your contributions to content discussion. Your call though. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposals for claim(s)
Proposal by Gaba Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  00:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That in 1833 the United Kingdom expelled the Argentine authorities, the military garrison and their families and forbade their return; proceeding to bring its own colonists to the islands.


 * That the principle of self-determination does not apply since the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population" of British character and nationality, not recognised as a "people" by United Nations resolutions.


 * I think Gaba's proposal is fairly accurate. As explained before, I would prefer to clarify the meaning of "bring" (Perhaps with a footnote?) but it's not a big deal. I approve this version. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note I don't, the Argentine claim is based on the (false) claim that Vernet's settlement was expelled in January 1833. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wee Curry Monster, the Argentine claims are clearly stated in the official Argentine documents stating its claims (yes I know I'm being redundant, that's an indication of just how ridiculous this discussion has gotten) The proposed bullet points accurately reflect this being based entirely in those documents. If you believe they don't then please state precisely how by citing the relevant parts of the sources that prove your point.
 * If no valid reason is presented (the "reason" in your comment above being a clear example of one) I'll replace the current claims by these ones. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  20:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, can we now restore the edit proposed by Gaba? WCM, as we have explained before, your comment about Vernet's settlement is wrong. We have already shown that the context of the sources suggest that "expelled the people that had settled there" does not imply that all of the settlers were expelled. Argentine sources do not claim that, thus it can hardly be a basis of the Argentine case. Further examples:

Rivero remained at the islands after the British takeover of Port Louis on January 2, 1833, with the rest of the preexisting population of 14 creole and 17 foreigners. The British administration of the now Falkland Islands named some of them as their chieftains.

This is my translation from the website of the permanent legislative commission "Observatorio Parlamentario Cuestión Malvinas". The text is by Rosana Guber, an academic member of the commission.

[L]et us dwell on Mr. Pepper’s own description of the blessings awaiting the Argentines who elected to remain under British rule — before 1833 we Argentines ruled the roost in the Malvinas but (Pepper dixit) Onslow proposed reducing the local population to “hunting the wild cattle and supplying fresh beef to visiting ships.” A striking change — the Argentines retreating to the Stone Age while the English had the whaling and the seal-hunting, the fishing permits, the ship chandlery, the sheep-rearing and control of the strategic Magellan. No wonder the Argentines “elected” to leave.

This is by Andres Cisneros, who was Argentine Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs during the 90s and was, at that time, put in charge of the Malvinas claim.

[Argentina] was in full possession of [the islands] when, on January 3, 1833, the English sloop-of-war Clío raised at Port Ruiz [sic] the English [sic] flag, suppressing the Argentine authorities.

This is my translation from Napp's The Argentine Republic (1876), a book prepared by request from the Argentine government to be presented at the 1876 Philadelphia Exposition. The fragment is part of a detailed passage, which concurs with current Argentine arguments, where there is no mention of the settlers being expelled. I purposely selected this antique source as it exposes one of the plentiful propaganda artifacts in Pascoe & Pepper, a pamphlet that is probably the source of this an many other misunderstandings.

Is that enough? The verbatim selected by Gaba is more precise and relevant to the case. Can we please restore it and move forward? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No it is not, the claim made by Argentina is that the settlers were expelled, I pointed this out with a supporting cite on March 29. There has been a proposal for an RFC, which I've accepted.  Let us follow the process please.
 * As I have patiently pointed out this has been a claim since the Ruda speech at the UN in 1964 and it is part of the rationale for denying the islanders have the right to self-determination. Selecting sources to fit your a priori assumptions does not make for a NPOV which requires that all relevant opinions are presented, you are cherry picking sources to support your edit not looking at sources to define it.  You're trying to assert that Argentina doesn't make this claim and it does.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @WCM: I haven't cherry picked anything, only providing noteworthy sources for something that is well known. Please try to debate constructively and let's try to clarify this odd conversation: Are you now saying that Argentina claims that (1) settlers were expelled, or that (2) all of the settlers were expelled? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't play semantics here the claim is that the Argentine settlers were expelled, the moment I see discussion devolving into arguing semantics it is cleaer there isn't a strong argument. The only slightly odd aspect is that apparently you seek to revert to the pre-Ruda speech position that Argentina.  If you were to go into history, I would agree that prior to the Ruda speech of 1964 Argentina had claimed only the explusion of the Argentine authorities.  However, that changed in 1964, when Ruda made his speech to the UN to claim the Argentine settlers had been expelled.  We can of course refer to the academic writings on the subject but that reflects a change in response to the evolution of self-determination doctrine.
 * If you want to put both claims in the article, then I don't object and I'm sure we can get to an agreeable wording. However, removing one to replace with another I can't agree with as you undermine the very case that Argentina is making based on self-determination doctrine.  A garrison is a transient population, the settlers are not.  Removal of a transient population shortly following a diplomatic warning would not be a strong case for denying a right to self-determination 200 years later.  This is why Gustafson suggests the effect of events in 1833 aren't clear.
 * Again I've agreed to accept an RFC on this if conducted by a neutral admin, I'm still waiting to see it enacted. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The "supporting cite" presented by Wee Curry Monster on March 29 states verbatim that the UK "expelled the people that had settled there". This is exactly what the first one of the claims proposed above states, in more detail. Wee Curry Monster is simply echoing Pascoe & Pepper's pamphlet (a WP:SPS and worst, a heavily pro-British biased one at that) where the authors make the artificial distinction between civilians and the garrison and claim that "Only 11 civilians left", that they "were not expelled; they made a free choice" and that "Only the garrison was expelled" (see page 19, point 19). They claim this invalidates the statement made in the Ruda Report which stated verbatim:


 * ... De hecho y de derecho pertenecían [las Islas Malvinas] a la República Argentina en 1833 y estaban gobernadas por autoridades argentinas y ocupadas por pobladores argentinos. Estas autoridades y pobladores fueron desalojados por la violencia, no permitiéndose su permanencia en el territorio.


 * The report says that both the authorities and the people/settlers/inhabitants were expelled which is precisely what the proposal above says. The difference between garrison and pobladores (people/settlers/inhabitants) is an artificial difference created by UK supporters designed to undermine the Argentine claim, as P&P's pamphlet attempts to do. That's why you see him here incoherently trying to produce some argumentation for his continued blocking of a properly sourced edit.
 * By all means try to extract some sense out of his comments but it's really a lost battle. We need some more neutral editors commenting here because you can count on at least two editors backing his position no matter how irrational it is and they will use this to deter consensus. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  23:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@WCM: I made a very simple question to try to clarify this absurd discussion and was met with your customary hassle. As we argued ad-nauseaum, your opinion that the people of the "garrison" were not "settlers" is irrelevant. WP:OR, and a poor one imho. The Spanish Empire used such "garrisons" commonly to comply with the requirement for effective occupation, they were called "presidios". Oftentimes they had no women, unlike the one at the islands, which had women and children and was thus probably meant to support a larger settlement, which was partly there already, responding to Argentine authority and titles and therefore part of the overall Argentine settlement. We don't know if each staff member would be ordered to remain for a year or a lifetime, but that's irrelevant, and please don't disrupt with a harangue about permanent vs. temporary occupation, because I'm referring to something else. Argentina calls these people "a population at the islands" too add up to the settlers who had arrived with Vernet.

So what Ruda and the others are saying is that these people, but not all of the settlers (not even all of the Argentines, Ruda is explicit about that) were removed. But what is more important to the Argentine case is that its authorities were removed and not allowed to return. And these facts can be fairly synthesized by saying that an "Argentine settlement" was removed, as we may read here and there, without implying that all of the settlers were removed.

We are trying to edit in a phrase that reflects the real claim more accurately, to replace the previous statement, which was misleading and incomplete. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, you're intepreting what Ruda meant and that is classical WP:OR and WP:SYN. Its noticeable that you're constantly making assertions about what is meant, as opposed to what is written.  As an encyclopedia we do not make such interpretations and we have policy that specifically forbids such original research.  You falsely claim this is down to Pepper and Pascoe, it is not.  Argentina has been making this claim in response to provisions in self-determination doctrine and its to address specific aspects of self-determination doctrine. Now I've agreed to a neutral RFC where this can be debated and community opinion sought - you will get your chance to make your case.  I can tell you now the constant personal attacks you keep making and the personal vendetta you and Gaba are pursuing will really undermine any case you hope to make.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Interpreting is not equal to making WP:OR. To understand the meaning of a sentence, and to evaluate if it provides a proper synthesis, we need to pay attention to its context, meaning the rest of the text basically. That is what I'm doing. Moreover, we can use other sources to clarify ambiguous points, sources like those quoted above, particularly because we are referring to the Argentine position at large. This does not amount to advancing a new theory as in WP:SYN or WP:OR, but quite the contrary. Actually, the previous version had that defect, by taking a sentence out of context.
 * We have already addressed (repeatedly) several of the points that you're mentioning, but I can paraphrase and refer to the Ruda statement particularly. Please help me understand, first, what it is that you are objecting, with more precision. We agree that these Argentine voices are saying that inhabitants were expelled. Our point is that this doesn't mean that all of the inhabitants, so we are proposing a phrase, from these statements, that gives more precision regarding who was supposedly expelled. What objection do you have to that phrase? Do you mean to say that these voices are saying that all of the inhabitants were expelled, or that specifically the settlers who arrived with Vernet were expelled, and we are hiding that statement?
 * On the other hand, do you object to us mentioning that the authorities were expelled?
 * Please try to be flexible, accepting the possibility that you may be wrong regarding the basis of the Argentine case. Would it help if I provided more quotes like the 3 above? I haven't done it already only because it takes me some time and I didn't want to be met with another pointless "cherry picking" accusation. Please help me learn what kind of evidence you would like. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Wee Curry Monster accusing of WP:OR and WP:SYN is quite ironic I must say.
 * We are explicitly and almost verbatim reproducing what is present in the Ruda Report . Here it goes again because it would appear you didn't read it:


 * ... De hecho y de derecho pertenecían [las Islas Malvinas] a la República Argentina en 1833 y estaban gobernadas por autoridades argentinas y ocupadas por pobladores argentinos. Estas autoridades y pobladores fueron desalojados por la violencia, no permitiéndose su permanencia en el territorio.


 * I've repeatedly pointed that what the sources state were expelled are:
 * Ruda Report: the authorities and the people/settlers/inhabitants
 * Argentine UK Embassy: the authorities, the military garrison and their families
 * Cancillería: the people that had settled there


 * You keep repeating "No, the settlers were expelled". This is precisely what the first proposed claim states, ie: "the military garrison and their families". There is no distinction made between civilians and military garrison regarding the settlers as far as Argentina is concerned, which is clearly demonstrated by the sources above. So what is your point? Are you arguing that the word settlers should be mention explicitly? I don't even know what you are opposing anymore. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  20:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wee Curry Monster: either open the RfC or ask another editor to do so or the edit needs to be made to the article. More than enough time has passed and the sources have been presented to you clearly over and over again. The article can't have those tags forever, specially when a perfectly valid edit based 100% on official Argentine sources is at our disposal and your reason for blocking its inclusion is pretty much nonexistent. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. To be honest, I think it would be more respectful to our time and effort that WCM or someone else simply restored the edit. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I will not restore the edit and I will seek admin intervention if you continue with the threat to edit war per WP:3RR. I have objected to your edit because it presents an untrue picture as to what Argentina claims.  I agreed to an RFC, which was your suggestion Gaba.  I note that you've contacted various editors,  who've declined to open a neutral RFC and I note the RFC you started received no response - that should have sent you a very strong message.  Noting the comments about bickering, which I fully agree with, I would suggest a more useful use of your time would be to suggest an edit that conforms to wikipedias policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and which doesn't rely on your own WP:OR and WP:SYN.  Focusing on content rather than continuing to attack me personally will be a more productive use of your time.  You cannot use ONE source and ignore/suppress what others say and that is pretty much what you're doing; you're even ignoring what the source itself claims.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wee Curry Monster: you don't even know what you are opposing anymore, do you? I have contacted one editor about opening an RfC for this issue and that's Dpmuk. I contacted Scjessey about a completely different issue (namely, your blocking of the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum) Dpmuk said he had no time so I asked you to either open one or ask another editor to do so.
 * There has been no RfC opened bout this issue. The RfC I opened, again, was about the referendum matter (which by the way, did receive responses, even though you quickly attempted to bury it under accusations of not-NPOV and endless unsubstantial comments, with the help of Kahastok). Please pay attention because your desire to continually attack me is making you loose track and confuse your perennial oppositions by default.
 * We are using three different sources, all of them official Argentine sources (of course you know this already). Are you now arguing that the official claims as stated by Argentina are not suitable sources for the official claims as stated by Argentina ? Are you proposing we use also use Argentine sources to comment on the British claims?
 * I'm ignoring what the sources say? Would you please comment further on this assertion? I've pasted verbatim above what the sources say, all three of them, and I based my proposal precisely on that. Please be specific: what are you opposing to now? Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes you are ignoring it and the fact I may have confused one of multiple discussions that you insist on raising, including reams of tendentious argument may have something to do with it. Argentina claims the settlers were expelled, not just the garrison; you're cherry picking sources to create misleading picture.  I was clear on the point I disputed.  Your sources do not support the claim you attribute to it, your interpretation of sources is WP:OR and WP:SYN.  I have agreed to an RFC where you will have every chance to state your case.  If just for one second you could resist the temptation to have another go at raising the temperature of talk page discussions it would be appreciated - FOCUS ON CONTENT NOT EDITORS.  If you can't find anyone to open the neutral RFC you requested that should say something.  Continuing to repeat the same position is unhelpful.  Are you going to have the RFC I agreed to or not, you're the one who suggested it.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So it's my fault that you accuse me of things that never happened? I see. What Argentina claims is expressed precisely in the official Argentine documents stating its claims . I've said this so many times now it's really getting ridiculous. I am not interpreting anything, I'm barely making any changes to what the sources say. The next step is to copy/paste verbatim what is stated on the sources.
 * I like how you ask me to focus on content after you falsely accused me of raising multiple RfCs at Dpmuks talk page. Again: I have only asked Dpmuk to open an RfC and he said he didn't have the time. Your claim that I can't find anyone to open an RfC is designed to make it look like I've tried many times, which is untrue as I've explained to you a number of times already. Please tone it down Wee Curry Monster.
 * Let's wait to see what Dpmuk says about opening an RfC. If he doesn't have the time we can search for someone else. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  13:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the RfM process as Dpmuk suggested but I found out that one of the requirements is that the issue had first gone through "a less-formal dispute resolution method, such as third opinion, request for comment or dispute resolution noticeboard;". So which one do you guys prefer? Seeing that the latest couple of RfCs opened had little to no engagement, I say we could try DRN. I'll see about asking editor Marshall20 if he'd be willing to open a ticket for us over there. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Marshal has agreed to help us mediating this discussion. He won't have time until the 11th, so we'll have to wait till then. In the interest of making things a bit simpler, Wee Curry Monster: do you also oppose replacing Andrés' claim with the one proposed above (the second one)? Otherwise I'll just add it into the article to ease the process and leave the first one to be discussed. Regards. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  14:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd both agreed to step aside, I would not have responded if I hadn't seen my username in your edit summary. Are you stepping aside or not?
 * As I previously noted on many occasions I oppose the edits proposed as not accurate. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wee Curry Monster I've been correcting you for the last couple of days now: this is one discussion, the one regarding the referendum is a completely different one . We stepped aside from the other discussion, remember?
 * So you oppose everything then. Very well, we'll just have to wait until Marshal has the time to review the discussion in full and propose a compromise/mediation. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Either you step aside or you don't, I agreed to do so and supposedly so did you. I consider it rather sneaky to say the least that you're wikilawyering now to claim it was only on one subject.  Its clear you had no intention to step aside.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What the?? I'm wikilawyering??? I have stepped aside from the other issue, why would you assume that means stepping aside from the entire article?? Look Wee Curry Monster, no one is forcing you to contribute (to call it something) to this discussion, so if you want to stop doing it then stop. I'd advise you to watch your accusations though. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I oppose formal mediation through RFM because of previous bad experience with the process. I note that mediation is almost always best achieved by outside editors with no history of involvement on the topic, who are far less likely to be taken as biased by any side. Detailed knowledge is not required at the outset. In this case, given the entrenched positions of certain editors, I do not believe that consensus is possible for any particular change, with or without mediation. The discussion has run its course and I see no benefit in prolonging it. No consensus means that the previous consensus (without the changes that Gaba proposes) applies.

I would suggest, Gaba, that if you feel that people are confusing different discussions, you might consider that you are trying to carry on too many discussions at once. Kahastok talk 18:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Kahastok: The previous version is unfaithful to the sources and misleading. Too much in the article follows a pamphletarian version of the topic. Let's improve it, applying something at least remotely resembling a scholarly standard. I'm putting a good deal of effort and it's rather hurtful to read blanket accusations of filibustering and entrenchment. I will try to summarize the conflict treated in this section, but please let's try to work on this and other content. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Kahastok: so you oppose the edits based on verified sources, you oppose mediation to try to achieve a consensus in the issue and apparently you now also oppose Marshal as a neutral mediator. Ok.
 * There are only two discussions going on right now and Wee Curry Monster spent days confusing both. Really Kahastok, if you have nothing of value to add to a discussion could you please be silent? Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are the one trying to prolong this discussion, not me. As I indicated, I would be very happy for us to close this discussion with no consensus for any specific change reached.  I note that neither I nor Curry Monster objected to change in principle, only the specific change that was proposed.  You might do well to consider your own advice: I see very little of value to the discussion in your message to me or your message to Curry Monster.  I will remind you that you cannot create consensus by filibustering until those who disagree with you start ignoring you.


 * I felt that there was any significant chance of success, I would not object to mediation by a genuinely external party (though not through RFM - I don't want to still be waiting for a mediator in August). But the discussion above demonstrates to me that there is no significant chance of success.  And I remain of the view that appointing any insider as a mediator is likely to be bad for the mediator and unlikely to help the article.  I note that a vital first step in practically all Wikipedia mediation is gathering the consent of all parties to the process - a step that you have skipped out here. Kahastok talk 22:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure Kahastok. We'll just have to wait until Marshal has the time to review the issue and take it from there. I have to note that your involvement in this discussion has been of so little help for either position, it's almost ridiculous. Anyway. Cheers mate. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  01:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary
There are several points in the controversy between WCM on one side, and Gaba and me on another. The most notorious is that WCM wants to emphasize that Argentina claims that Vernet's settlers were expelled and not allowed to return. But Argentina doesn't claim that. To support the assertion, WCM's referred to an Argentine communication that stated that the UK "expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return", and to another (i.e., the Ruda speech) that according to him says that "A) That the Argentine settlers were expelled B) their return was prevented".

I find two reasons for WCM's misinterpretation and assertiveness on this matter:

(1) A misunderstanding of the concept of unlawful population transfer. WCM stresses the depopulation of the territory as a requirement, disregarding the removal of authority as an effective foundation. But both beliefs are incorrect (e.g., see "settler infusion policies" in Kolodner 94).

(2) Believing that the pro-Argentine voices consider that the military men and their families, sent in 1832 to join the remnants of Vernet's settlement, were not "population" or "settlers"; thus those voices are referring to Vernet's settlers when they say that a population was expelled. That is absurd, more so considering that classing out those people is doubtful at the very least. In the early 19th century, small populations under orders (such as garrisons or small militarized villages called presidios by the Spanish, as well as penal settlements, etc.) were frequently used to support frontier populations or to comply, by themselves, with the requirement of effective occupation.

(3?) It is not clear to me, though I asked twice, if WCM believes that Argentina claims that all of the settlers were expelled. I provided several "official" sources to show that it is not claimed.

If we discard those misapprehensions, we can interpret the context of the two sources rendered by WCM avoiding a misinterpretation that I have addressed repeatedly throughout these five weeks of unnecessarily-difficult discussion (e.g., see   ). When those sources say that an Argentine population was expelled, or that settlers were, there is no reason to believe that it means all of the settlers at the islands, or Vernet's settlers particularly. The Ruda statement is even explicit about some Argentinians staying.

On the other hand, the verbatim from the other source claimed by WCM, more precisely "expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return", is not a proper summary, particularly due to the absence of its context (as I commented here ). There is no reason to believe that "The people that had settled there" means all of the people who had, or that it means Vernet's settlers. Such an interpretation would be incompatible with the other sources mentioned before, and it is discouraged by the rest of the document. Elsewhere, the document states that "in 1833 the United Kingdom expelled the Argentine authorities, the military garrison and their families and forbade their return". Those are the alluded people. With Gaba, we are proposing to use that line instead, as it offers a proper summary of who was expelled according to Argentina, because it is a more-accurate statement that keeps its meaning when taken out of its context, unlike the other proposal.

Some other points were discussed here, but we can deal with those later. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Cheers on your good summary of P&P's pro-British straw man. Sadly, bias is strong in some editors here, and I don't think that this will change anytime soon.
 * Well said, tho. --Langus (t) 20:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not an accurate summary. I have, as promised, stayed away from the discussion, I have no particular desire to continue with a dialogue of the deaf and don't intend to make this a habit.  However, I cannot allow such a statement, which is nothing but repeated personal attacks to remain unchallenged.
 * Langus' claim that this is based on a paper by British researchers Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe is simply untrue. His accusations of bias I reject out of hand.  The fact is the edit is based upon what Argentina claims.   Andrés' assertion that Argentina's claim stems solely from the expulsion of the garrison is decidedly inaccurate.
 * Andrés has referred to an exchange between Andrés Cisneros and Peter Pepper in the Buenos Aires Herald and Mercopress, I remember it well. The full exchange is here .  In one letter, Falklands/Malvinas controversy: “Minds closed, indeed”, Cisneros writes:

He then continues: “Captain Onslow of the Clio had orders not to molest civilians” but none stayed after the arrival of Englishmen armed to the teeth — can that be a coincidence?
 * Specifically Cisneros claims that NONE of the Argentine civilians stayed after the British returned. This claim by Cisneros is specifically excluded from the summary that Andrés presents above. I note above he claims that I have not provided any source to show "Argentina claims that all of the settlers were expelled".  This is the problem, you provide a source and its simply ignored.  I first provided such a source on 29 March 2013 .   Its now May and he is still claiming no source has been provided.
 * That we are unable to achieve on a consensus on what Andrés insists upon inserting, is down to the manner this discussion has repeatedly devolved into accusations of bias, assertions this is P&P's pro-British straw man and basically down to the fact that interpreting documents to assert this claim refers only to the garrison is pure WP:OR and WP:SYN on Andrés' part. It is not helped by posts like the above, long on personal attack / accusations and very thin on actual substance.  Nor can any discussion move on if we see decidely childish behaviour such as repeatedly claiming no source has been provided, when it has.  It is not helped by cherry picking from sources to support an a priori  position.  To paraphrase Pepper and Cisneros, there can be no consensus with closed minds.
 * The reason I oppose the changes suggested by Andrés is that they do not accurately reflect what Argentina claims, which I have backed up with reference to sources both official and unofficial. I won't be persuaded to change my mind with the constant accusations and personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason why we are unable to reach consensus is because you refuse to accept that the Argentine claims should be taken from the official Argentine documents stating those claims . What you have been doing instead is to repeatedly misrepresent one of the official Argentine sources (specifically ) to say that "Argentina claims that all of the settlers were expelled" like you did above. Neither that source nor the other two official documents say that, which I've pointed out repeatedly too. Just to summarize once more what those three official Argentine sources state in regards to who was expelled:
 * Ruda Report: the authorities and the people/settlers/inhabitants
 * Argentine UK Embassy: the authorities, the military garrison and their families
 * Cancillería: the people that had settled there
 * None of them mention explicitly all of the settlers and none of them make any distinction whatsoever between civilians and the garrison as you insist on doing. Argentina has never said it bases its claims on the expulsion of all the settlers. This, as you are perfectly aware of, is a pro-British argument that attempts to downplay Argentina's position by shifting the attention to the statement that "only the garrison was expelled" as if that made any difference at all.
 * Cherry picking an opinion piece like that of Cisneros and his exchange with Pepper & Pascoe is utterly ridiculous when we have at our disposition three official Argentine documents to obtain the official Argentine claims from. Accusing others of cherry picking while doing so is downright hypocritical.
 * Finally: you don't own the article We Curry Monster. There is no requisite to get your own personal approval to make a thoroughly sourced edit to the article. Nevertheless, since Kahastok and Apcbg will back whatever your position is thus effectively blocking consensus unless we do get your personal approval, I've asked Marshall to please take the time to go through this ridiculously long mess of a discussion and open a RfC or RfM if he believes it to be necessary. Let's give him time to do so and see what his comments are on the issue. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  17:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gaba, 2 of your 3 quotes actually support Wee's position. Apcbg (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Apcbg. Your comment is the perfect example of how intricate Wee Curry Monster's semantic gymnastics are at this point. Would you mind expanding on your reasoning please? Tell us exactly what you think Wee Curry Monster's position is and how those 2 out of 3 quotes support it, would you? Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Apcbg is quite right. It seems to me that some pretty alarming "semantic gymnastics" are required to make "the people that had settled there" mean only military personnel, excluding all civilians - but that seems to be what you are claiming. Kahastok talk 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope and that only goes to show that not even you know what Wee Curry Monster is arguing any more. The sentence "the people that had settled there" means exactly that. There is absolutely no distinction in the word people between a garrison, the authorities and civilians which is precisely what the other two sources state. Would you feel better if the proposal read the people that had settled there instead of the Argentine authorities, the military garrison and their families? Because I'm perfectly fine with either one. Regards.  Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  17:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I had already commented on the cancillería snippet in my last remark above (dated May 6). WCM brings it across immediately, as if it were not considered. And he even accuses me of not considering it... How absurd can this conversation get? This is going to take forever if we don't read each other and just repeat our original ideas. (I used the wrong quote, see my next comment 22:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC))

I also commented there on that other snippet from the Ruda statement, mentioning that, in another part of the text, Ruda is explicit about some civilians staying. He writes "Casi todos los habitantes argentinos fueron expulsados de las islas" which translates to "Almost all of the Argentine inhabitants were expelled from the islands."

Regarding Cisneros's comment, we cannot overlook that elsewhere in that piece he writes: "As if that were not enough, let us dwell on Mr. Pepper’s own description of the blessings awaiting the Argentines who elected to remain under British rule". When Cisneros uses the word "none", the context indicates that he is referring to those with Argentine nationality. Among those, almost 90% were expelled, or 100% if we count those who were living permanently in Port Louis if I'm not mistaken. They were quite a bunch and Cisneros is answering, in that paragraph, to the denial of the use of force. If we find his piece ambiguous in this respect, we may consult this chapter from a book he wrote with Carlos Escudé, where they fail to mention any expulsion of the totality of the inhabitants or of the Argentine inhabitants particularly.

When I say that Argentina does not claim what WCM thinks it claims, it is not just from these few references. What is significant about the 1833 event is the dispossession of the islands by the use of force, which was implemented by expelling those people that Argentina calls "inhabitants". It is largely irrelevant if some people were allowed to stay. Why should we expect pro-Argentine voices to stress often and clearly that some people could? They don't, but it doesn't mean that they deny the fact. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Kahastok, if a sentence in a story read "some of the men in the group went to the match and other men went to the pub", and the story later referred to "the men who went to the match", would you assume that it means all the men present at the match, or only those belonging to the group alluded in the first sentence? Likewise, if the cancillería text previously states that:


 * [O]n 3 January 1833 a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base.


 * Then what is it so "gymnastic" about assuming that "[expelled] the people who had settled there", as it is mentioned later, refers to those Argentine authorities, perhaps someone more, but not all of the settlers at the islands? How can that last interpretation be compatible with the prior passage that I have quoted? The settler who was left in charge of the flag was also expelled previously? Don't other sources work to further hint that "the settlers" were not necessarily all of the settlers at the islands?


 * Sorry, it seems that I used the wrong quote before, which would explain why WCM disregarded my cancillería comment. I apologize. But the point regarding the document remains. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your example does not make sense. The text concerned doesn't say the people who were expelled by the British as your example would suggest - if it did then the point would be clear and I would accept your argument.  It says that Britain "expelled the people that had settled there".  I note that the two points you mention are sixteen paragraphs apart, and are separated by a large section header.  I find the contention that the one gives implicit context to the other to be distinctly tenuous.


 * It doesn't say that Britain "expelled some people" or "expelled people". It says that Britain "expelled the people that had settled there".  And that, unless we're going in for semantic gymnastics, means all of them.


 * Incidentally, the claim would still be inaccurate if your contention that it was 90-100% of Argentines who were living permanently in Port Louis were expelled. In fact, post-1833 as pre-1833, most of the population were gauchos of South American descent.  All but a handful of civilians remained on the islands.  A large majority of those who actually left were mutinous soldiers - if the British hadn't shown up, it's inconceivable that Argentina would not also have "expelled" them - for court-martial and probable execution. Kahastok talk 14:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually "expelled the people that had settled there" means precisely that and nothing more. If you want to interpret that statement in more detail you can look at the other two official Argentine sources which make this same claim in more detail. Semantic gymnastics are indeed required to interpret the first statement to mean all the settlers.
 * I'll ask you once again Kahastok since you didn't answer: would you support using the verbatim statement "expelled the people that had settled there" instead of the current "expelled the Argentine authorities, the military garrison and their families"? Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  14:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Kahastok: As I indicated before, if the sentence means all of them, then how could one be left in charge of raising the flag regularly? And was he left there to live alone, like a Robinson Crusoe in a cold windy place?


 * The example I gave is analogous to the other text in the sense that the highlighted sentence is qualified by a prior passage. I don't mean just the flag part, but the details about who was sent off, and the lack of mentions to expulsion of all the settlers in that part of the text which, unlike the other part, is the one that details the 1833 incident. Eliminate from my example the part about men going to the pub if you prefer, to make it more similar.


 * Regarding the proportions, bear in mind that about half of the so-called gauchos were actually Charrúa Amerindians from Uruguay, which was an independent country since 1828. The real gauchos who stayed were about 5 persons, while those leaving with Pinedo were more than 40. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)