Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation

Hello, I'm Eagle 101, I've been here for about 2 years, and have been an admin for over a year. I have written several programs and have done work of a technical nature for wikipedia as well. If you will all sign below that you all agree to me as mediator for you folks (If you do not want me to mediate, simply say so, and I'll open it back up for someone else to take the case), and that you all agree to consider compromises and alternatives that would be a good start:


 * Justin A Kuntz
 * Pfainuk talk
 * Alex79818 Alex79818

Once that is done, I would appreciate it if you all would state briefly in fewer then 100 or so words what the main issue is according to you that will assist me in getting a grasp of what you guys feel the dispute is (rather then what I think the dispute is). Please mind our various policies on civility, etc, in short be polite, and remember that we are probably not all from the same culture, so just try to be as respectful as possible. We are here to mediate the content issue, not any issues that anyone person has done in the duration of the debate. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 10:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Short statement of scope of the debate
Please keep your statement short and sweet, and please don't respond to each other, just state what you think is the issue and let everyone read over what everyone else thinks the locus of the debate is, and of course sign your message at the end. Best of luck folks. :) ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 10:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex79818
Hi Eagle101, thanks for mediating. I apologize for the length, the brief is short and sweet and I tried to outline my supporting arguments as they're spread out all over the prior mediation and discussion pages. A more thorough elaboration can be found in my talk page Alex79818, complete with citations & links.

1. Historical Event: The Nootka Sound Convention, as a historical event, is a treaty that is relevant to the history of the Falkland Islands (among many other places).

1.1 Parties to the convention: Parties to the convention were Britain and Spain only.

1.2 Primary source text and relevant dates: My edit is an almost verbatim copy of the primary source text, signed in 1790 and again in 1814, before Argentina declared independence.

1.3 Other NPOV uses of similar primary source texts in WP: Similar conclusions of the exact same treaty language is applied elsewhere in WP, without specifically naming the island or listing a secondary source to corroborate interpretation.

1.4 Secondary source corroborations: I’ve provided three secondary sources on both sides of the current sovereignty dispute debate. All three present Nootka as a relevant historical event, with the exact same interpretation by all sides.

1.5 NPOV Relevance to Falkland Islands history: Nootka merits mention in fact and scope within the History section of the WP Falkland Islands article, in a NPOV fashion, irrelevant of how other parties or editors may interpret its mention insofar as the ongoing sovereignty claim dispute (UK/Argentina) is concerned.

'''2. Exclusion / Removal challenges: The challenges leveraged are based on their own non-cited conclusions of relevance and exclusivity of context, and seek to bury Nootka within secondary linked pages instead of allowing the content to be in the primary article. Challengers have refused to cite their conclusions repeatedly.'''

2.1 Logical fallacy: Saying ‘X ≠ Y because you have no citations’ is not the same as saying ‘X ≠ Y because X = Z, and therefore X can only be presented within the scope of Z’.

2.2 Definition of “Adjacent” : "...the islands adjacent." should be interpreted with WP:UCS in mind. Insofar as relevance of Nootka to Falklands, The primary source is interpreted in a way consistent with the same primary source treaty language’s interpretation elsewhere in WP, and secondary sources confirm the same interpretation is applied by both sides of the dispute.

2.3 Relevance of fact: The original challenge to the phrase was not violation of WP:NPOV, but irrelevance, as denoted by Justin A Kuntz’s notation:

"Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim"

I submit my primary and secondary sources do prove empirical relevance.

2.4 Synthesis: I submit that the Avery Island example establishes a WP standard for interpreting primary-source text language “the islands adjacent”, and that my interpretation of Nootka as per my passage conforms to that WP standard.

2.5 Promotion of Argentine Point of View: The conclusions that Nootka bolsters the Argentine POV, and that Nootka’s mention is applicable exclusively under that context, has not been proven by the challenging editors. This constitutes original research as defined by WP:OR.

2.6 Original research: If challenging editors’ conclusions in 2.5 constitute WP:OR, then confinement of Nootka to secondary linked WP pages constitutes a biased marginalization of relevant information, failing WP:NPOV. Thus, a deletion edit cannot be based on an OR conclusion.

2.7 Conduct of Editor: The conduct of an editor, whether newbie or regular, is irrelevant to the matter, which is a question of fact.

Thank you for your time. Alex79818 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz
There are two issues as I see it.

1. Proposed edit fails to comply with Wiki guidelines.

1.1) Promotes POV, thus failing WP:NPOV 1.2) Sources do not support edit, thus failing WP:V 1.3) Relies on synthesising a position from published material, thus failing WP:NOR and WP:SYN

I think that succintly summarises the issues. Detail is addressed on the previous page. Justin A Kuntz 12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pfainuk
I do not consider my position to be substantially different to that of Justin A Kuntz.

Alex79818 proposes to add reference to the Nootka Conventions to Falkland Islands, relying essentially on a single primary source, the text of Nootka itself. His edit includes various unsourced interpretations of the text (and of later historical events), both implied and stated, which between them imply that the Argentine POV of the text is accurate. There are several points at which said POV is reasonably open to dispute, including the interpretation that Nootka applied to the Falklands (so, whether it is relevant to the article). His edits were challenged on these grounds, largely by two editors (myself and Justin A Kuntz), starting at the time of the original revert, before Alex79818 joined discussion. The validity of this challenge seems to be where this dispute is as no source backing up these interpretations has been forthcoming. Pfainuk talk 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
Ok, as I see it there is a proposed edit that not everyone here agrees with. We should always remember that wikipedia does strive to be accurate, and to do that we must use verifiable sources. We shall not look at or care about prior conduct of Alex79818, we need to focus on the editorial issues. I think the guidelines of reliable sources and verifiability should have a quick review and update by all parties.

As far as our current debate going on, I think it centers on the importance and relevance of the Nootka Sound Convention to the Falkland Islands, and whether or not the addition can be added to the article on the Falkland Islands. Can we all sign below that we agree this is the locus of our dispute? If not a simple one or two sentences as to why I'm confused.


 * I would agree with the above, but add that the determination of relevance to be made should not be exclusively within the context of an Argentine Sovereignty claim, but instead, that the determination of relevance here pertains to the larger context of Nootka as a historical event and its relevance to Falkland Islands history (or lack thereof, as claimed by challenges).Alex79818 21:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we just sign below in the 1, 2, and 3 please? I'm trying to keep things very simple here. I won't be determining anything at all. Also I would like all parties to remember that brevity is a virtue ;). I did not list above how relevance will be determined, but simply a statement of what the debate is about. I find that its hard sometimes to talk about the issue if everyone does not agree on what the issue is. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OkAlex79818 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to disagree that the problem is the relevance and importance of the Nootka Sound convention. Nootka sound convention is relevant to the Falkland Islands dispute in that Argentina claims that under Nootka Britain relinquished sovereignty rights in 1790.  Hence, both Pfainuk and I have ensured that it is discussed under Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and History of the Falkland Islands.  In his summary above Alex79818 has not accurately summarised the edit he proposes or its content.


 * The crux of the matter is that Alex79818 seeks to interpret the text to imply that that under the Nootka convention Britain in some way relinquished sovereignty. He has played semantic games with how he presents that argument but that nonetheless is what he is trying to do.  I would suggest the mediator refers to  and reviews the diff history presented


 * In interpreting the text as he does he is conducting WP:OR and using published sources to synthesis an argument (in violation of WP:SYN). The fact that he is trying to push a POV in favour of Argentine claims also fails WP:NPOV.  He also misrepresents what his sources say.  The Argentine Government source claims that under Nootka, Britain relinquished sovereignty (but as I supplied him that source from Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and it presents the Argentine claim that is not surprising).  An Argentine Government source presenting its case does not present a NPOV.  The English language sources merely state the language of the Nootka convention and the date, there is no mention of the relevance to the Falkland Islands or to any British position on sovereignty.  Notably one of his sources has a page dedicated to International Agreements relevant to the Falkland Islands and Nootka is noticeably absent.  The other source is claimed to be an Open University source but I note that the original author of that page has since indicated this is a personal page and in no way related to the University.  Also the author of that work has also indicated that he is aware of several errors in that page.  Hence, his edit fails WP:V and WP:RS.


 * Essentially the issue at stake here is clearly one of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Justin A Kuntz 08:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you claim what Alex wants to add is a violation of our verifiability guidelines and policies, but what Alex wants to add is exactly what? I think we need to pin down the problem here before we can reach any sort of compromise, as it appears that not everyone is on the same page here. So, I guess we should start by having everyone make a 2-3 sentence statement (no more!) on what they feel the crux of this matter is. It seems to be over one edit or addition, but it does not look like everyone agrees on what exactly is at issue here. From what I see you are saying is that the Nootka Sound Convention implies that Britain relinquishes claims to falkland, but did not relinquish sovereignty. On the other hand Alex feels that Britain did relinquish sovereignty. If that is the case, lets all sign below agreeing to this "crux of the debate". If I'm off, please make a 2-3 sentence statement of what you feel is the crux. (lets forget sources for the moment, lets forget behavior, exactly what is under dispute, I laid what I have learned and have understood so far just before this sentence.)


 * Alex79818 seeks to add the Nootka convention applies to the Falkland Islands, ergo Britain relinquishes sovereignty, as claimed in the Argentine Government sovereignty claim WP:NPOV.  He seeks to interpret the text to establish relevance, WP:OR, and from that synthesise a position that Britain relinquished sovereignty WP:SYN.  English language sources do not establish relevancy WP:V, one is inaccurate WP:RS and the Argentine Source presents a one sided view of the claim WP:NPOV.  Justin A Kuntz 10:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My statement: I seek to add mention of the Nootka Sound Convention to the history section of the primary WP EN article on the Falkland Islands because I believe Nootka is relevant to the Falkland Islands in its own right, not exclusive to the context of the Argentine POV as my challengers state, due to the descriptive text of the primary source which is prima facie evidence of relevance as allowed per WP:PSTS.


 * I believe neither party to the convention relinquished its sovereignty claim to the islands in Nootka, as the primary source dealt with future settlements, not sovereignty. I do believe that when the treaty was initially signed in 1790, the only party that was present on the island was Spain - therefore Britain was the only party who could establish future settlements, and that right was ceded in 1790. But afterwards, both parties were off the island in 1814 when the treaty was re-signed, so both parties ceded the rights to future settlements on that occasion. My primary and secondary sources are from all sides of the dispute, UK/Falklands/Argentina, they all coincide in presenting Nootka as a historical event related to Falklands history irrelevant of the sovereignty claim dispute, and as such they meet - nay, guarantee, WP:NPOV.  My sources are all reliable, are updated for accuracy, and meet WP:V, therefore the above is not WP:OR.


 * Lastly, I believe Argentina's interpretation of Nootka, whether real or as challenging editors perceive it, is irrelevant to the above because Argentina didn't exist until 1816, and was therefore not a party to the Convention, and thus the interpretation of a third party cannot be considered in answering a question of empirical fact per WP: NPOV. I know it's not two sentences but that's what I believe.


 * How I think we should proceed: I think there are basically two core questions which lie at the very heart of the matter.


 * The challenging editors believe relevance of Nootka exists exclusively within the content of Argentina’s claim, and in that character, Nootka’s mention should be limited to the secondary articles, as-is. On the other hand, I believe that Nootka is a relevant historical event to the Falkland Islands in it’s own right, and as such, Nootka’s mention should be in the primary article.


 * So, question #1: Based on the arguments and citations presented by both sides, and WP policies, does the mediator believe the Nootka Sound Convention is a historical event relevant to Falklands exclusively within the context of an Argentine Sovereignty Claim as stipulated by the challengers, or can it be a relevant historical event in its own right as I have stipulated?


 * And, question #2: Based on the arguments and citations presented by both sides, and WP policies, does the mediator believe that any mention of Nootka should be exclusively in the primary article, or exclusively in the secondary linked articles, or in both?


 * I think the above encompasses all of the smaller questions which have been leveraged back and forth, including:


 * -Charges of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN violations, and
 * -Challenges to primary and secondary source interpretations under WP:PSTS, WP:V, and WP:RS.


 * So, I think, if the mediator can answer the above two questions and explain the answers in relation to WP policies in the bullet points above, we should be able to come up with a pretty fair and unbiased conclusion. So if we can all agree that these are the questions to be answered, please sign and let’s get on with it.


 * Lastly in relation to citations, I wish to point out that I've listed more in my talk page. Frankly, there are so many that I could sit here and add citations till the cows come home.  It would probably be easier therefore if the mediator does a simple google search of the terms "Nootka Falklands" and judge which of these are POV or NPOV.Alex79818 05:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 Alex79818
 * 2
 * 3

Once we all agree what the problem is, I'll propose some ideas on how to get us all towards a solution. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Drafts
Ok, can we all agree that you guys have your own sources that show your points of view? Each of you have produced primary and secondary sources that advance your point of view. It is not my job to choose which point of view is somehow "right", and we are not required to show only one point of view here. Our policy of neutral point of view does not require only one point of view to be in the article. So I am going to suggest that both of you write a draft, incorporating both your point of view and the opposing point of view.

Drafts can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation/Draft-Justin-1 and Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation/Draft-Alex-1. As you guys have agreed to attempt to comprimise when you entered this mediation I expect both of you to move towards each other. For now I would like both of you to make changes to the draft version that I provided, and attempt to accommodate the other point of view as well. Once we have two draft versions, we can compare the two and attempt to find a compromise. I left you both a section so you can describe your changes to the starting reference point, and why you made those changes. Please keep statements short, no more then 400 words. Good luck. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin-1
Under the Nootka Convention of 1790 Britain conceded Spanish sovereignty over all Spain's traditional territories in the Americas. Whether or not the islands were included is disputed.

Alex-1
My draft, incorporating draft into existing pre/post text…

(begin existing text)"...As a result of economic pressures resulting from the upcoming American War of Independence, the United Kingdom unilaterally chose to withdraw from many of her overseas settlements in 1774.[8][9] Upon her withdrawal in 1776 the UK left behind a plaque asserting her claims. From then on, Spain alone maintained a settlement ruled from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata.(end existing text)

(begin draft) In 1790, England formally entered into the Nootka Sound Convention with Spain, disavowing any further colonial ambitions in South America and “the islands adjacent”. In 1811, Spain, too, withdrew her settlements from the island, also leaving behind a plaque asserting her claims. Britain and Spain then renewed the terms of the Nootka Convention in 1814, there being no settlements on the islands at the time. Under the last Convention's terms, Britain and Spain both relinquished the right to new settlements, while equal fishing rights were to be shared by Britain, Spain and the United States, and all three parties would retain the liberty to land and erect temporary buildings aiding in such fishing operations. (end draft)

(resume existing text) When Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, it laid claim to the islands according to the uti possidetis juris principle, since they had been under the administrative jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. On 6 November 1820, Colonel David Jewett, an American sailor..."

Mediation Point of Order
Hi Eagle  101,

It is becoming more apparent to me that mediation may not be effective in this case, based on the actions of Justin. I have committed myself to the process of mediation but I believe this forum is now being used as some sort of buffer to prolong the process of conflict resolution. For one thing, Justin's draft contains a completely unsupported conclusion ("Whether or not the islands were included is disputed.") for which he provides absolutely no evidence of his own to support. Secondly, the game of semantics seems to continue in that my secondary sources are either misunderstood, or a meaning is ascribed to them that is not present in the text (I would understand and WP:AGF if this was a primary source, but the source I provided is very specific and its content is greatly mischaracterized by Justin).

At the heart of the matter is Wikipedia policy and an objective third-party interpretation of the primary and secondary source text. Clearly, as long as one party is unable or unwilling to cite sources and simply engage in semantics to change the meaning of other editors' sources to suit their purpose, no meeting of the minds can occurr. I believe what is necessary here is an authority that examine the given POV's, the proposed edits, and can authoritatively decide, either yes or no, 'this constitutes WP:SYN', 'or that constitutes WP:OR'. In the meantime, editing continues on the articles concerned, Justin's unsupported, uncited conclusions continue to appear on WP without any possible challenge, other than futile and unproductive 'edit wars'.

Therefore if the matter is to be referred to ArbCom, it is my opinion this should be done sooner rather than later, as later action will mean a greater and more complex review of unsupported material which could be prevented by promptly employing corrective action in the matter. Eagle 101, if you believe instead that progress can be made, then I'd have no problem continuing with this forum - but I don't find it acceptable that I'm the only party coming up with citations while the other engages in sophomoric behavior, accusing me of WP violations, reaching false conclusions and not backing them up with any citations of their own. So as a mediator, I'd like to know your thoughts on going forward. Thank you.Alex79818 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have already requested a referral to Arbcom. I would suggest that you also attempt to explain to Alex what Arbcom does and does not do as he clearly does not understand the process.  Justin talk 07:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked and didn't see any pending referrals. I still defer to  Eagle  101's opinion on how to proceed.Alex79818 12:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)