Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 20

Tabled status of international views
The International Views section is a little disjointed. Could we put this in a tabled format, as per normal (for example International Recognition of Kosovo)? I would be more than happy to work on it if there is consensus to do that. (Edit on Jan. 27 ... this got moved down the page so, for those just joining, this is what I had in mind: [])BlueSalix (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because this would massively overstate the impact or opinions of states who really don't give a crap and who are willing to go through the motions to maintain good relations with the UK or (more commonly) Argentina. Which is to say, most of the world.  Worth also mentioning the current Argentine government's habit of thanking countries for support that was never offered.
 * My view remains, as it was before, that there is no actual benefit in trying to assign viewpoints to countries as we currently do, that international opinions have no impact on the modern dispute at all - where expressed, are rarely more than lip service - and that consequently the entire section should be removed. Kahastok talk 22:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to clarify, is your position that all "international opinions" sections from every article on Wikipedia be removed or just the ones in this article? BlueSalix (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where you got the idea that I might be referring to anything other than this article in particular, given that my comment was entirely based on this particular situation. Of course international views are significant where the international community cares about the outcome of a dispute.  In this case, with very few exceptions, they don't. Kahastok talk 22:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was only asking for a clarification; I apologize if you took offense. Given there is widespread WP precedent for including "international opinions" sections in articles about international territorial questions we should, perhaps, focus our attention on the best way to present it, as opposed to whether or not exceptional formatting decisions should be applied to this article. In any case, thanks for your input. BlueSalix (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gah, it's late here and it's probably not a good idea to be editing while tired!
 * The international positions section was subject to a long discussion in the early part of last. It's all in the archives, but it's so disjointed that it'll be difficult to understand.
 * At the time, there were cited countries who have made statements or signed statements in support of both countries within weeks of one another. In many cases, where a statement has been made, it appears to have been taken solely through politeness or to avoid a diplomatic dispute, and not as a committed or settled opinion.  In a surprisingly large number of cases, Argentina in particular has announced that they have a country's support but the country itself has not commented or has repudiated the announcement.  Worth mentioning that the last Summit of the Americas failed after the President of Argentina stormed out - because the US and Canada torpedoed a statement committing them to supporting the Argentine position on the Falklands.  If securing this trade deal means not saying anything when Kirchner declares that you support her over an issue you couldn't give two hoots about, countries tend to stay silent.
 * In this environment, suggesting that there is a clear or settled view on either side is, in the vast majority of cases, undue weight and probably inaccurate. Most countries simply don't care.
 * As such, if we have a section at all, my view is that it should list only the most important cases - fewer than are now listed. There may be as many as three or four countries whose views are significant enough and well-enough established to be included, plus we would mention the organisational support.  Anything more is getting into the realms of undue weight.  But better not to have a section because the international position is, all-in-all, not particularly significant in this dispute. Kahastok talk 23:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's appropriate for us, as editors, to try to read between the lines of statements nations make vis a vis territorial disputes to determine if they're legitimate or not. That's certainly for the reader to decide. I don't think this situation is so notable that we would override WP precedent by trying to minimize this section. Further, a tabled and comprehensive format would allow the complexities or evolution of individual positions to be better expressed, for example, Chile - which was formerly in support of British position and is now in support of the Argentine - or Spain, which supports the Argentine position though clearly as part of a horse trading deal with respect to mutual recognition of their Gibraltar claim. To try to ameliorate your concerns, what would your thoughts be if we separated this into an entirely new article "International Opinions on ..." and then deleted the section here? (Also, I'm sorry if something I said here, or in the other article, came across as snippy. It's late where I'm at, at this moment, so it was definitely not my intention.) BlueSalix (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Which view are you going to take? The time they supported the British, the time they supported the Argentines three weeks later, or the time they supported the British a week after that?


 * Do you feel that a comment made by one of the parties asserting the support of a third country in 2010 is necessarily was valid at the time, and do you think it valid now? On what basis?  If 2010, what about 1982?  Or the 1960s?


 * Normally we would have sources describing countries' views. Not in this case.  We would be relying on news stories about statements, because the normal reliable sources, if they mention international views at all (and many don't), mention them in the context of the 1982 war or only discuss a few key cases - such as Chile and the United States.


 * What this means is that your table or mass-ranking would absolutely require a great deal of original research, because in almost all cases that will be the only way of divining a position one way or the other. It is absolutely impossible to complete this task neutrally and without OR.  It occurs to me that we have actually tried to list support by countries for one side or the other previously, and have failed for this reason.


 * A separate article would take WP:UNDUE to a whole new extreme and would be impossible to source. I would strongly oppose it.


 * Incidentally, I don't think we're close to needing a third RFC on this yet. It's late here as well, so I may be snappier than normal (sorry!).  I suggest we both leave it for now. Kahastok talk 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources that reference current positions taken by nations in respect to the South Atlantic islands. Most importantly, these are official sources, unmediated by press, which seems to remedy the concern you noted. For instance, Uruguay, in a statement posted to the website of the foreign ministry says "Uruguay considers Isles Malvinas to be a British colonial possession in Latin America ... sovereignty is claimed by Argentina with the support of Uruguay." (http://www.mrree.gub.uy/frontend/page?1,inicio,ampliacion-ppal,O,es,0,PAG;CONC;73;3;D;malvinas-la-posicion-de-uruguay-no-ha-cambiado;2;PAG;). Canada has posted a similar statement, albeit with the opposite position, on their FM website. The U.S. has posted its middle-of-the-road position on the DoS website, etc. etc. It took me 10 minutes to locate 8 similar statements. "Mass ranking" sounds dramatic. I'm just suggesting this article obey the standards of every similar WP article. Information is out there - Wikipedia should collate it. There is no reason we should prevent RS information from being introduced to WP, or hide or delete information we don't want the public at large to access. The only question is the best way to organize this information. BlueSalix (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What about India, South Africa, Germany? Not minor countries here.  You're talking about a long table of countries who for the most part don't care.  Your proposal gives some fairly extreme undue weight to occasional statements - sometimes many years old - by countries who couldn't give a crap, while the points that reliable sources consider significant are underplayed.


 * And of course it's no good saying 10 minutes to locate 8 statements. When were the statements?  Who made the statements?  Can I use this government statement made at the height of the war in 1982?  What about the evidence that we found last time someone pushed this that describe these statements as nothing more than "lip service"?  And of course, if the statements come primarily from one part of the world, that may be an WP:NPOV violation on its own.


 * Even if you don't intend to rely on your own divination from primary sources, let's remember that any such section is likely to be expanded - we know this, it's happened before. There's a reason why we removed any attempt to do this before and it applies no less now.


 * What about WP:PSTS, which makes it clear that we shouldn't be in the business of basing large tracts of text on primary sources. The same standards as other articles means not putting in text where it cannot be written without violating mutliple core policies.  If other articles can put in sections that meet Wikipedia standards, good for them.  But what you are proposing here does not meet those standards, relying solely on original research to produce a section that gives vast undue weight. Kahastok talk 07:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Germany doesn't care" and "these statements are lip service" are editorial positions. We don't decide what knowledge to exclude from Wikipedia based on our political philosophy. We also don't exclude knowledge because there's a chance we might not like future edits. You asked "when were the statements?" All I found were within the last 2 years. BlueSalix (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please tell me where two quotes come from at the beginning of your text. I don't find them in mine.  I note that the words "lip service" actually came from a source (in the archive), hence the word "evidence".  We do take the editorial decision to exclude points where adding them is to the net detriment of the encyclopædia, and that is the case here.  What you are proposing does not meet basic Wikipedia policy standards, and those who come later will be no better.


 * I note with interest that you fail to provide the sources you say you have found. And why should 2 years be a cut-off?  If you accept sources from 2012, why not sources from 2011?  If 2011, why not 2008?  If 2008, why not 1998?  If 1998, why not 1982, or well before?  At what year are you saying it's no longer current?  And are you intending to keep these sources updated, with new sources from the last two years every time the two-year cut-off is reached?  This is why we prefer to rely on secondary sources, because with secondary sources you don't need to make that kind of original interpretation of the data.  You can just go with the secondary source.


 * Trouble is, in this case, most reliable secondary sources don't include any such description, and those that do limit it to a very few relevant cases. You've yet to give a good reason why we should give vastly more weight to this point than reliable secondary sources do. Kahastok talk 18:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I respect your right to respond in monologue format, however, it's not reasonable to expect me to quote hundreds of words in my response. I respond to the succinct essence of statements. BlueSalix (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not an excuse for misquoting people, let alone misrepresenting them as you did here. I note with interest that you fail to give any reason why 2 years should be a definitive cut-off, so I will take it as more of your original research. Kahastok talk 20:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Kahastok, I appreciate your passion for this topic but I need you to dial-it down just a little, please. The use of quote marks does not equal me "misquoting" you unless attribution is given to you, which I did not do (intentionally, I add, because I did not want to misquote you, only try to summarize your very, very long statement for ease of discussion). Let's AGF. I think we've both made our points, I'm interested to hear what others have to say now. Thanks, Kahastok! BlueSalix (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to summarise, don't put it in quote marks (or if you do, at least make it clear in the wording that you are not quoting) and get the summary accurate. Neither of the two quotes above accurately represents the points I was making.  Not explicitly attributing it to me does not mean you are not claiming it as a quote.


 * And I note that you still make no attempt to defend your OR cut-off time. Kahastok talk 21:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kahastok! I'm sure we'll both be interested in what others have to contribute now. BlueSalix (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose RFC. The RFC here was filed less than three hours after the first comment was made.  We're still discussing the point.  It's far too early to be going to RFC on this. Kahastok talk 07:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Immediate RfC is necessary to avoid likely WP:CIVIL issues. This article is of wide disinterest to the greater WP community due to its heavy patrolling by the residents of two tiny countries (Argentina and Britain) who have an historic rivalry. An immediate RfC is the only way to inject a more diverse worldview by the greater WP community and avoid this turning into a dick-measuring contest. There is strong WP precedent for including a section such as this ... among major international disputes, only the Israelis and South Atlantic islands do not have a tabled section of foreign and international positions. Neither instance appears to be founded in a rational case to break WP precedent, but, rather, as part of a public diplomacy effort by one side or the other to suppress the appearance of widespread international opposition to their side's position (in the case of the UK here) or to suppress the appearance of support by their side's position by the bad boys club of Iran, et. al. (in the case of Argentina here). 11:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)BlueSalix (talk)


 * I see what you mean by WP:CIVIL issues: that particular string of personal attacks would certainly quality as a pretty severe WP:CIVIL issue. But your inability to communicate civilly is not a good reason why we should feel the need to go to RFC.


 * I would note that there is no policy that requires such a section, and if such a section is considered desirable there is no policy setting out what form it must take. In this case, because the number of outside views that are in any way relevant is very limited, prose is more appropriate.


 * Is there a good reason to exclude such a section altogether? Yes.  The weight given to this part of the topic by reliable sources is negligible, to the point where having a section at all is overdoing it.  Trying to assign positions to countries based on our own interpretations of statements that those countries may or may not have made many years ago is so obviously OR, that it's difficult to understand how you do not see it. Kahastok talk 18:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to passionately express your views, Kahastok! We definitely have a vibrant debate occurring and I'm certainly interested to hear what others have to say. All the best, BlueSalix (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you had given discussion time rather than immediately opening an RFC when someone disagreed with you, we would probably have had some significant chance of reaching more of a compromise on our own. Your personal attacks and uncivil remarks make compromise far harder, I find, as does the vastly premature RFC.  Worth mentioning of course that the RFC fails the standards listed at WP:RFC in that the introduction is not neutral. Kahastok talk 20:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Kahastok - I was not aware I made personal attacks on you and apologize if I did. We need to keep this thread on track, however, instead of using it to question others motives, so, in interest of doing that I will report myself to ANI for sanction and will delete the RfC until appropriate remedy for my behavior can be decided. BlueSalix (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you really feel the need to take yourself to the drama boards, then I can't really stop you, but I don't tend to go there at this stage in proceedings and don't currently intend to here. For future reference, the texts I found significantly offensive were those that appeared to accuse me of trying to turn this into "a dick-measuring contest" and of being "part of a public diplomacy effort by one side or the other to suppress the appearance of [...]".  As I believe I have made clear, there are genuine and fundamental problems with the change proposed, that make it effectively impossible to write while remaining within Wikipedia policy - we have tried before and it hasn't worked.


 * Without the RFC, I hope that we can continue this discussion and reach an agreement on potential changes without need for further formal dispute resolution: my opposition to expanding this, and to replacing it with a table, list or map, does not mean that we cannot attempt to make it less "disjointed" in prose terms. Kahastok talk 21:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that, Kahastok! All the best - BlueSalix (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently we can't. Ah well.  I tried to get a fresh start here, with a hope of reaching a compromise here.  But if you insist on this RFC - and let us remember that its entire basis is those personal attacks you issued, your apology rings distinctly hollow. Kahastok talk 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are examples of list and/or tabled sections of international positions vis a vis international issues. A tabled section on "Current international positions on the territorial dispute" could either take the form of concise position statements by state-level actors, or simply (as in the case of Macedonia), a list of nations that have made an overt statement of preference for the name Malvinas, nations that use the other name, or nations that alternate between the two depending on language. (This is a sample, not an exhaustive, list. I can provide another dozen examples, if anyone would like.)
 * International reactions to the Syrian Civil War
 * International reactions to the September 11 attacks
 * Macedonia Naming Dispute - International Positions
 * International Positions on Jerusalem
 * International reaction to the Gaza War
 * International reactions to the Bahraini uprising (2011–present)
 * Here is (the start) of an example of one possible revision of this section I came up with (in my Sandbox): User:BlueSalix/sandbox (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fairly major false equals there. All of those are major events - or time-limited events - that have been subject to wide debate internationally.  The one that doesn't fall into that bracket is one that is basically binary (if you recognise Macedonia, you have to give it a name; this is not the case here).  There is an equivalent article in this dispute, but it isn't this one.  It's called Falklands War.  And that article does contain a description of the international reaction.


 * This is not an article about a war, or a terrorist attack. This is a dispute that is very rarely noticed outside the UK and Argentina (and sometimes not noticed even inside).  It is not a dispute that necessarily has a binary perspective, a dispute where you cannot avoid making some kind of statement.  It is not a dispute where outside parties intervene of their own accord, or where the views of outside parties plays any significant role.  International politics on minor disputes such as this are nothing like as clear-cut as you are making out.  It's nowhere close.


 * And let us not pretend that this has not been tried before. It has.  It failed and was removed, for all the reasons I describe.  Because the weight given to this point by including such a section would be overwhelmingly greater than that which appears in reliable sources on the subject.  Because this absence of reliable sourcing meant that it proved impossible to determine, in the vast majority of cases, what position was being taken without doing original research.  Because it was realised that the data being provided was effectively Wikipedia editors assigning positions to countries based on their own original interpretations of statements made by them - or made by the parties to the dispute - at some point in history.  All of your alternatives fail for the same reasons.  You don't have to like it, it is what it is. Kahastok talk 18:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Worth mentioning quite where we are with the sandbox, which demonstrates several of my points. You list Guyana under supporters of Argentina, where at the same time Guyana is a member of Caricom and supported Britain as per your reference for Grenada.  The vast majority of the states you list are Latin American - that's systematic bias and a WP:NPOV violation.  You've divined positions from statements - in Guyana and Peru's case it's nearly seven years old, in Bolivia's case it's five years old and so on.  By ranking countries in the way you propose are inferring that these positions are still accurate, but you've got no basis to assume this - it's your original interpretation of, for the most part primary sources, which isn't allowed.  I could keep going. Kahastok talk 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All of Wikipedia is a snapshot in time that can be edited to change as conditions change. The argument that "these positions could change, therefore we shouldn't acknowledge they exist and must keep this knowledge from being accessed by readers," taken to its logical conclusion would mean we need to shut-down Wikipedia. I'd ask you explore a NPOV assessment. BlueSalix (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that they could change in the future. Beyond your own original interpretation, you've nothing to say that they're accurate in the present.  You're declaring that these countries hold a position based on nothing but primary sources indicating a single statement over half a decade ago.  That's not evidence.


 * Fact is, not all information - not even all information in primary sources - belongs on Wikipedia. Your notion that we "must keep this knowledge from being accessed by readers" - and incidentally you again claim that I said something I patently didn't - is not a reason to add text that violates core policies such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  Material that violates such basic policy does not belong on Wikipedia.  Its not about preventing knowledge from being accessed, it's about presenting a neutral article based on reliable sources. Kahastok talk 20:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You definitely have a passionate opinion - thanks for presenting it in the discussion, Kahastok! I'm sure we'll both be interested in what others have to contribute now. BlueSalix (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And you apparently have no rebuttal to any of this. You haven't rebutted them in your responses and you haven't rebutted them now.  That's very telling. Kahastok talk 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, although information seems to be too much to be contained in just a section; an article on its own (like Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute) seems appropriate. I disagree with Kahastok's stance that "international opinions have no impact on the modern dispute at all", as one of the four ways of understanding sovereignty is "formal recognition by other sovereign states". --Langus (t) 02:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please cite evidence that any state recognises the Falkland Islands as an independent sovereign state. If is none (as I strongly suspect), then it is difficult to see how any connection between this dispute and the definition of an independent sovereign state is relevant.  Seems to me that you're conflating two totally different contexts. Kahastok talk 07:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * neutral I can see where the OP is coming from, but I am not sure that we need this sort of thing in both the Sovereignty dispute article, and here. I am seeing no strong arguments to support either side. Maybe a brief mention ("and otehr countries have offered support to eitehr side", with a link to the section in the sovereignty dispute article).Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, thanks very much for your feedback! Just to clarify, though, you're currently in the Sovereignty dispute article. BlueSalix (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Conditional oppose - proposed addition can be seriously reduced to a couple of paragraphs stating that in most cases the support a side gets is conditional on reciprocal acts and the like, otherwise it is far too big for the article at present. If BlueSalix doesn't want to condense, then I'd suggest creating a new article for it where it won't take up too much of the article. Mabuska (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No opposition from my end with Mabuska's suggestion, which seems to mirror that made by Langus, vis a vis a spun-off article with main link. BlueSalix (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with creating a new article remains. Based on BlueSalix's sandbox:
 * First, the entire article would be based on primary sources, a clear violation of WP:NOR (and specifically of WP:PSTS). There is no other choice because there is not the coverage in secondary sources to sustain an independent article.
 * Second, the sandbox is heavily skewed towards Latin American countries with close relations with Argentina, which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. As an example, he cites membership of ALBA as support for Argentina (except, curiously, for St Lucia), but does not cite membership of CARICOM or the EU as support for Britain.
 * Third, the author of the sandbox has chosen to assign countries to Argentina, Britain or neutral, based on his/her own original interpretation of individual statements (primary sources) and events that are, in some cases, many years old (i.e. that may have been the position at the time, but it may have changed).  This is original research, and not allowed.  Where there are multiple sources, they are combined to reach an original conclusion.  This is also original research and not allowed.


 * Because the assignment is based on individual sources, there is no evidence that there are not other sources that contradict the statement. In fact, in many cases there are - he lists CARICOM members as supporting Argentina and then cites a meeting where CARICOM members supported Britain.  He lists Peru as neutral (and not pro-Argentine) based on the visit of a Royal Naval ship on South Atlantic patrol in 2012 - even though similar visits to Chile, Uruguay and Brazil (which he lists as pro-Argentine) are so routine that they do not cause significant coverage.  This is why this kind of original research is not allowed, and why Wikipedia much prefers secondary sources.  Secondary sources can make the judgement that Peru is neutral on the Falklands, or that various Caribbean states support Argentina - if that is the case.  Individual statements by individual countries cannot.


 * These are precisely the reasons why all attempts to include such information in this article were removed. Because it cannot be done neutrally and without OR.  By creating his/her sandbox, BlueSalix is achieving nothing but proving this point.


 * When it comes down to it, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written according to the weight that exists in secondary sources. As it happens, even now, we overdo this point compared with secondary sources.  Secondary sources do not give the point as much weight as we do even before the proposed massive expansion.  And it doesn't matter if it gets farmed off to a different article - the huge addition of weight to this point would still be there.  The proposal makes a mockery of Wikipedia policy and we should be opposing it in its entirety. Kahastok talk 18:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What if the source is a non peer-reviewed historian, having to publish outside of academia for whatever reason (like publishing on his/her own website) but they quote evidence from academic secondary sources for their assertions? __ E L A Q U E A T E  18:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That situation does not apply to this proposal as no such source is proposed. The hypothetical depends on more detail than you're giving us.  And the policy is the mass of secondary sources, so even if there is an individual oddball, it doesn't affect the broad point. Kahastok talk 18:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just seen the edit summary. I deliberately did not say the sources were unreliable - for what they say.  If a source says that Country X made a statement in 2007, they may well be reliable.  But this does not mean that they have not later made a statement that contradicts the 2007 statement (in this dispute, this would hardly be unusual) and does not mean that the statement they made in 2007 still stands in 2014. Kahastok talk 19:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I understand. We should only report what people did say, and when they said it. We shouldn't say things that sound like we know what "no further announcements" would mean. The absence of evidence should not be portrayed as evidence of absence. Does that sound right? __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, yes, if that's what the source says. Trying to infer a position in 2014 from a source reporting an individual statement in 2010, 2007, 2005 or 1982 is original research, to be avoided.  It is possible in principle for sources to speak in more general terms, and with that sort of source we can accept the more general terms.  As a rule, sources of that sort are not available in this case.


 * The fact that they are generally not available brings me to the due weight point. The reason why BlueSalix has to rely on such original research for this section is that the reliable secondary sources about the dispute don't spend a lot of time discussing views of countries outside Argentina and the UK.  In principle, Wikipedia articles should weight their content based on the weight given to the points by reliable sources on the same subject as the article - otherwise they risk bias by over- or understating the importance of a given point.  This also allows us to use the reliable sources to source our article.  In this case, the weight given to international views in the current article is already greater than the weight that appears in reliable sources about this dispute.


 * An enormous expansion, such as is proposed, would create an equally enormous imbalance - effectively, bias - to the article. The importance given to this point by Wikipedia would be far greater than the importance given to it by reliable sources.  This isn't neutral, and it isn't something we as editors have any business in doing. Kahastok talk 23:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Kahastok, your point - while I'm sure it's well thought out - is simply far too long for me to succinctly reply, however, I'll just note in reference to your #1 and #2 points; more than 80% of the sources are secondary sources, not primary sources and NPOV doesn't demand every side in a debate have equal treatment, it demands every side in a debate have neutral treatment. For instance, if the article on Benny Hinn has five critical quotes, we're not obligated to track down exactly five complimentary quotes to balance it out. We just need to reflect the reality of the situation, whatever it may be. BlueSalix (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You aren't giving every side in the debate neutral treatment; you're primarily listing POVs of Latin American countries with close ties to Argentina, and your standard for inclusion of supporters of Argentina is far lower than your standard for inclusion of supporters of Britain.


 * Your sources are not reasonably secondary sources in that they do nothing but repeat the facts of the statements being reported. The vast majority of the positions you give are your own suppositions based on your own personal interpretation of the sources.  Your sources do not back your claim that support exists, and you ignore facts that do not fit in with your narrative.  Not allowed.  But always going to happen with any attempt to do this, given the lack of coverage for this point in reliable secondary sources on the dispute. Kahastok talk 23:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm listing POVs of countries that have expressed a POV. The fact is, many of those happen to be Latin American countries. That's the reality of the situation. I don't understand the problem you're describing. BlueSalix (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you have difficulty understanding WP:OR. Let us start from first principles.  You are not allowed to do your own original research and present it on Wikipedia.  This is precisely what you propose to do here.  You propose to present the results of your own research into the international views of countries on the Falkland Islands as fact.


 * Your entire list, along with several of the conclusions for individual countries, are original synthesis in that they bring together multiple sources, and try to link them up to come to a conclusion that is not reached by any of them.


 * There are reasons why original research is not allowed. Different ways of collating the list would produce markedly different outcomes, both for individual countries and for the list as a whole, and there is no external standard that we can use to create one (because no reliable source attempts to do what you are attempting to do).  Your assumptions and working methods are systematically biased in favour of one party to the dispute, but even then, there is a huge amount of room for different people to reach different conclusions to you, particularly when given the full facts (rather than just the ones you have chosen to present).  I have already given several examples of cases where your assumptions and conclusions are not difficult to punch great big holes through.  All of these issues are pretty much inevitable with original research - which is why original research has always been banned on Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 18:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * May I note that the list is more about format than content? Everything it contains is already in the article. Also, if assembling a list is "bringing together multiple sources, and (...) come to a conclusion that is not reached by any of them", then WP is in deep trouble... (and I would also need someone to point me to the conclusion allegedly synthesized by BlueSalix) --Langus (t) 23:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that's not a good reason to add crap to this article. I don't accept that original synthesis is as widespread as you claim.  Your claim that the entire list is already in the article is so obviously false that is difficult to imagine how you could possibly have come to that conclusion.  And the point, as noted below, is the obvious point from just looking at the proposal - the conclusion one draws from seeing the list compiled by BlueSalix is obvious (that most of the world actively supports Argentina) - that conclusion is not drawn by any of the sources he uses and we have no particular reason to assume that it is accurate. Kahastok talk 18:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think two dozen of 192 nations weighing in on the south Atlantic sovereignty dispute shows "most of the world actively supports Argentina." It sounds like the conclusion you're worried about being drawn is one at which you've arrived, not me. Thanks, Kahastok! BlueSalix (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't list those for which you'e found now information as neutral, though, do you? That's the obvious conclusion from your proposal, whether you want it to be or not. Kahastok talk 07:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Kahastok, I don't know what conclusions I've reached that you're saying I've reached. I was unaware I'd presented any conclusion at all, in fact. All I did was assemble a holistic collection of facts reported by secondary RS, and grouped around a common topic. AFAIK, that's what Wikipedia is. I can also assure you I'm completely unbiased and I would very kindly ask you not call me biased and extend to me the same respect in my contributions as I've given to yours. Anyway, I think we're just going around in circles at this point and it's better if we agree to disagree. Thanks so much, Kahastok - I appreciate the time you've devoted to discussing this proposal! BlueSalix (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but I am not aware of any secondary sources dealing with the statistics of international support for the claims and its legal or political implications. Apcbg (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not aware of any that deal with statistics of support either. BlueSalix (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...which is why your attempt to generate such statistics is original research.


 * FWIW I see no reason not to point out a biased proposal when I see it. Your working methods display clear systematic bias in favour of Argentina.  I am not calling it deliberate bias (though I note your interesting inability to use the word "Falkland") - but all bias is banned, be it deliberate or accidental.  Frankly, any attempt to compile such a list (given the absence of reliable sources doing the same job) will be open to the same criticism - but again, that does not make the bias acceptable.  As I've noted above, this is why we ban original research. Kahastok talk 18:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (a) never suggested we should generate statistics, that's not any proposal I've ever made; (b) I'm not biased in favor of Argentina; please AGF as to my intent - thanks, Kahastok! BlueSalix (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For (a), you are generating statistics - the fact that you're not explicitly counting the countries doesn't change that, since the comparison would be drawn by every reader of this article and we're not going . For (b), I spent most of my post pointing out that the bias may well not be deliberate.  It does not matter whether the bias is deliberate or not, it is still bias and it is still not allowed.  But it is fact that you have already rubbed several other editors up the wrong way by refusing to refer to the islands' name in English. Kahastok talk 07:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (a) no, (b) screaming "you're biased!" is not a productive contribution in an edit discussion, but for the record I have never referred to the islands by their Spanish name in this or any contribution during my time on WP - not once ... so I'm curious where you're getting the bias claim; it seems like there's something that really makes you feel I'm biased but you think you can't get away with saying it publicly so you're kind-of creeping around it - just go ahead, tell us BlueSalix (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Brought here via the bot.  A table is not good for this type of information because of the details that may be necessary.  I would oppose it for an article section like this one.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Thargor Orlando! Two editors have suggested a counter-proposal of an entirely new article separate from this one for international opinion. What are your thoughts on that? BlueSalix (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Things need to be sourced, content has to neutrally describe the conflict without dismissing one side over the other.
Okay, I looked at some of the discussions. I see this isn't the first time that someone argued that The rules formally allow references in a lede, but that's not how it tends to work in practice. This argument is too weak to stand in the face of WP:VERIFY: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." If the dates of Argentine/British/Spanish control are controversial, then they are by definition something that is likely to be challenged, even when setting aside that they have been directly challenged. Right now, everything that's not directly supported by a citation can be removed. __ E L A Q U E A T E  08:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I am struggling to see your point? The dates aren't controversial, in fact the sources are in agreement pretty much.  They could be sourced quite easily and I've obtained some books that do so quite readily.  I think you need to separate comments from editors who wish to edit to push a particular POV (eg claiming Argentina was in control from 1820-1833, or to claim the British have ruled the islands since 1765) from those who wish to improve the article and its the former you appear to be giving credence to in relation to asserting dates are controversial.  BedsBookworm (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The dates of particular events are sourced, but I'd be surprised if what exactly constituted "de facto control" was uncontested. Would we be better relabelling (and if necessary adjusting) to show a timeline of extant settlements on the island? - Khendon (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe I've noted before that I don't have a major issue with relabelling the table, but I would oppose any fundamental change to it because I feel that this sort of summary of the article is a valuable explanation to the reader. IIRC it was previously called "de facto sovereignty", but that was rejected on the grounds that it was a contradiction in terms. Kahastok talk 19:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, but the simple fact remains that there are errors in the chart as it stands, and unsourced interpretation on top of it. Look at one example: we have multiple claims that Britain left in 1774, leaving the plaque then, yet our timelines say they didn't leave until 1776. I was told the dates were well-sourced, but this directly contradicts the claim cited by Cawkell, Freedman, as well as claims made by the BBC, the Guardian, others, in favor of a self-published newsletter writer of unknown worth on a defunct website. The 1776 claim is repeated, even where it contradicts other assertions in the same paragraph. I would have been happy to fix other errors like this, but I thought I was being polite by asking for the providence of the dates before doing so, and was only told they should be considered fine or that the sources could be found by hunting through the talk page archives. There are other things that can be considered in error or unduly one-sided, but I was trying to give people a chance to source them before they were removed. The table also seems to reflect only a single version of the two disputants claims. Am I correct that it picks a single and specific interpretation of the dates, rejecting others? 20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)__ E L A Q U E A T E


 * No. It's the consistent description from reliable sources.  But nobody has said that it is perfect or beyond correction or improvement - far from it.


 * If you want specific answers, don't ask general questions. If you ask general questions, you will get general answers - you did in fact get general answers.  You can't expect people to infer from what you've written above that you're objecting to a given specific date.  Because they won't.  Editors here are not mind-readers.


 * If you'd said, Cawkell, Freedman et al suggest 1776 is wrong, and it should be 1774, and I propose we make that change, then I would have pointed out that it was originally 1774, but was changed some years back because the understanding of the sources was that the order was made in 1774 but the settlement didn't pack up until 1776. I would have then suggested that we check to see whether this understanding has merit, and if not, would have agreed to the change to reflect the sources.  There are still sources that pull together the dates, so there's no original synthesis or original research in change the date.


 * Instead of that, because the questions you were asking were so general (to the point where you were saying not, what are the sources, but is it verifiable "yes or no") I didn't say any of that. Frankly, given the ambiguous wording of the above, I'm still not entirely sure that that's even what you're arguing for. Kahastok talk 00:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That was only an example of the problem. I'll fix the error it describes. But I was only using it to point out that the table is a collection of who-knows-what, from who-knows-when, and a lack f sourcing hides errors for years and obscures who made interpretations for the things that aren't hard facts. We're not reflecting the dispute with it, there are assumptions in the timeline that need sourcing to show who made them. This isn't that hard. You seem to be taking a lot for granted that wouldn't be apparent to a reader or any uninvolved editor. "De facto" control seems to be an arbitrary label, sometimes used to mean general administrative control of the island, at others to control of a single fort despite administrative control by others. There's nothing unusual about asking for sourcing for the interpretive material in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaqueate (talk • contribs)
 * The sources are already in the article. You objected based on Cawkell and Freedman - both are cited in the body of the article as sources for these dates.  But you didn't start by asking for sources, you asked if there were sources - to the point of insisting "yes or no", suggesting you didn't want detail, you wanted a one-word answer.


 * Frankly, you seem to be expecting me and others to flounder around trying to guess at what you want here. Your argument still seems to be a hand-wavy issue with non-specific dates that you feel might be controversial.  I don't know which dates you think are controversial.  I don't see what your point is and I don't know what sources you feel are necessary, beyond those already in the article.  If you'd prefer a better title to the table, perhaps you could make a suggestion?  If not, what are you proposing? Kahastok talk 17:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't considered that, if it isn't the first time that it's been pointed out that references in the lede tend to get removed pretty quickly, it may be because that it is in fact how things work in practice. I can assure you that it is. Kahastok talk 19:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If they're removed without cause, they can be put back in, as long as they're reliable sources that directly support the point made. __ E L A Q U E A T E  20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you planning on patrolling this article continuously for the next few years, checking to ensure that nobody removes the references, and having the argument on talk if anyone tries? Doesn't matter, they'll disappear anyway.  Truth is, most of the time such sources vanish fairly well under the radar as someone does a bit of clean-up, and you don't notice they're gone for weeks afterward.  And don't expect much support - most people generally don't seem think it's worth the hassle of arguing over it when the sources are in the article anyway. Kahastok talk 00:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a no need to put things in such combative terms. The suggestion of adding citations to article material here shouldn't be considered controversial, in itself. You seem to be arguing that we do the wrong thing, just because other editor will do the wrong thing later. This attitude doesn't help build an encyclopedia. __ E L A Q U E A T E  13:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that I see very little point in implementing a short-term fix, full in the knowledge that it has no chance of lasting. It does not improve the encyclopædia to waste people's time by insisting on adding references so that others can remove them.  We should be improving the encyclopædia in the long term, and this is the opposite of that. Kahastok talk 17:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've given everybody about a week to provide any inline citations for the "de facto" control claims. If there are no sources that directly support that all of these dates represented a change in actual "de facto" control. It has to be clear that it's not just something generally thought to be true by a few active editors. UNSOURCED is extremely clear about what needs to be done with challenged and likely to be challenged material. Just add some citations so uninvolved editors can examine the material. Cheers. __ E L A Q U E A T E  04:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your change. The table has a long standing consensus and I see an ongoing discussion here about whether cites belong in the lede at all.  There is a long standing consensus that material in the lede isn't cited, since the material can be found in the article itself.  Importantly I see a broad consensus amongst other editors not to remove this material and a willingness to see it renamed to deal with any reasonable concerns.  The final point I would make is that editors have responded to you and ignored that to remove material without properly discussing it.  I would suggest you do not make such unilateral changes when editors are prepared to discuss your concerns. I see you've not even waited for my response, you've not discussed it further and just reverted again.  Ever heard of WP:BRD?  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This couldn't be clearer: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.. I don't think I'm the one who has violated this policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E  15:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE is also policy:

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Emphasis added

Editoral consensus is very much against you on this occason. And whilst cites are not prohibited in the lede, they're generally not encouraged and you will often find them removed by clean up editors. So noting consensus is against you, noting policy does not require cites in the lede are you prepared to self-revert in order to continue discussing in a reasonable manner? Policy clearly does not support the my way or the highway stance you're taking on this.

May I also point you to the essay WP:SOFIXIT, if you perceive there is a need for inline citations, can I ask is it the case you expect others to do the work you demand? You see the stance you're taking at the moment very much gives the impression that you're using policy to get rid of something you for some reason don't like. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADCITE doesn't contradict or supersede WP:V in any way. Look at the first two sentences of what you've quoted to me. ...controversial subjects may require many citations. Are you saying there is no dispute over what these dates might mean to different sources? Khendon and Langus both made comments that the material might, in some way, be challengeable. I agree with this assessment. Are you basing your reading of WP:LEADCITE on the idea that this is somehow a non-controversial subject? A consensus over citation style does not override WP:V, especially when dealing with material likely to be challenged. WP:LEADCITE clearly says there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads You're making a couple of baseless accusations against me here, and I don't find it civil. You've accused me, twice, of edit-warring, when I've done nothing of the kind. You also accuse me of demanding work from people and I'm not asking anybody to do a thing. I neither demand nor require work from anybody. If somebody wants to re-add material, they have the exact same burden anybody has to add material, that's not my requirement. I said the material was in violation of policy over a week ago. The only person who has acted in violation of policy here is you, when you re-added material without meeting any burden of proof. __ E L A Q U E A T E  16:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you've backed off your more combative wording. Thank you, that's appreciated. __ E L A Q U E A T E  16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The dates are not controversial and the comments from Langus were that he liked the table but that he felt that changing the title would offset any problems with any controversial aspect of the table. It may surprise him but on this occasion I'd tend to agree.  You are manipulating what that editor in fact said; he did not agree with the removal of this table.
 * Further, as I pointed out to you, I have not violated burden of proof, since as has been commented repeatedly, the material in the lead reflects what is in the article. I would request you withdraw that allegation.
 * You have in fact edit warred. You've removed this material, which you dress up as as based in policy, when it has been pointed out where there is an editorial consensus on non-controversial material not requiring them in the lead per WP:LEADCITE and when challenged you reverted rather than discussing it.  That is edit warring in a nutshell.
 * Furthermore, other than mentioning the edit warring I made no accusations against you, in point of fact I went back and edited my initial post to make it clearer that I was not making any such allegation. As a Glaswegian I tend to speak plainly and I went out of my way to avoid any misunderstanding. I would request you withdraw the accusation of incivility.
 * If I am to summarise the discussion:
 * You do not intend to add any cites to support that table in the lede yourself.
 * You expect any editor who does add that table to provide cites, despite an editorial consensus they are not required.
 * If cites aren't provided, you will delete it immediately.
 * You will not self-revert to allow the discussion to reach a conclusion.
 * Have I accurately summarised your position? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You haven't fairly summarized my position. I have no problem adding citations to the article, and have done quite a bit to improve them. I don't need things to happen immediately, Wikipedia has no deadline. I am not required to source and find citations for other people's material for subjective judgements that look unsettled to me. It is silly to expect I would per WP:BURDEN. You shouldn't paint my desire to improve the article and bring it in line with WP:V as somehow being radically outside of policy. Challenged material should have citations to sources that directly support it. Since I didn't write WP:V, it only contains demands that are not my own. Now, if it were a simple chronological listing of dates, the table would be less controversial. It's not a simple chronology. It purports to know who was "really" in control in a given year. This is obviously in dispute between sources, whatever you personally feel to be true. The dates are being used to support an oversimplified description that is not consistently found in any of the sources used for all of the dates contained in the table. Now, you seem to have double-downed on your baseless accusation of edit-warring. You should attempt to be less confrontational here, as you are wrong. I have made a single revert to my first edit, with discussion and explanation on the talk page, before and after. I already noted that you withdrew your incivility and thanked you for doing so. Here, you are demanding a second "Thank you" while repeatedly accusing me of something I didn't do? And it's past time to stop citing MOS:LEADCITE as if it overrides WP:V. MOS:LEADCITE is only applicable when material is not in conflict with WP:V. None of my requests for article improvement are based on anything to do with material being in the lead. I'm not asking for material to be cited out of a belief that the lead should always have citations. This is a red herring. MOS:LEADCITE advises that citations aren't necessary or prohibited, but it advises more citation for controversial material and citations if material is challenged or likely to be challenged material per WP:V above all. So are you really saying that specifically-dated periods of de facto control of the Falkland Islands, in the Nineteenth century, is considered "non-controversial"? I'm sure parts of the periods are, but we list all of them as if start- and end-dates are in no way disputed in detail. If you consider that this issue can be repaired with a change of claim in the title, then you should have done that, rather than reinserting the material unchanged. All of your "Are you asking me to do a tonne of work?" complaints would apply to yourself in this case. And if you're admitting the title can change, I could take that as an admission that the title was never based on the sources at all, and represents an interpretation of the sources made by Wikipedia editors.__ E L A Q U E A T E   18:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish to draw bad faith conclusions about my motivations in editing from my willingness to consider an alternative title that is entirely your prerogative. They do nothing for achieving a consensus.  Again if you wish to base a bad faith conclusion upon my preference for establishing a consensus in talk before implementing a change over making a WP:BOLD edit on what can be a controversial article, then again that is entirely your prerogative but does nothing for consensus building.  None of the dates are disputed and the current consensus is that the lead does not need cites for none controversial material. Some editors have suggested the title can be improved but as I see it, any discussion on that is being derailed by this exchange.  As such it is my intention to step away for at least 24 hrs and allow others to comment.  I would suggest you consider doing the same.
 * It is not the case I'm arguing that it is a "tonne of work" but your basic premise is as you didn't write it, you don't have to help adding the citations you insist are necessary (against the consensus that they are not) and that is hardly the hallmark of what is supposed to be a collaborative effort. As I see it, you are simply repeating that citations are necessary and you are ignoring that per WP:LEADCITE editorial consensus is they are not.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. I never mentioned your motivations, I assume you're trying to make things better as you see it. Compare that with your assertion here that I have done things in "bad faith". Please don't do that while lecturing about AGF. I never said material couldn't be added, but I hoped that it would be added to meet WP:V concerns. 2. This has nothing to do with the lead and I've only said challengeable material must be directly supported, which is based on MOS:LEADCITE and WP:V, not against it. 3. This is not about the accuracy of individual dates, it is about what we are saying those events meant for "de facto control". You repeatedly assert that this is non-controversial, but reliable sources disagree about who was in "de facto control". Our table shows no disagreement. Your whole argument seems based on the idea there could be no controversy over when people had control of the Falkland Islands, which is troubling. Do other people agree that there is no possible controversy over when de facto control started and ended? For all of the dates on the list?__ E L A Q U E A T E  19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)