Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-24/Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute

''I have moved editor statements and discussion here from the main page to try to make things easier to use. I hope this is OK with everyone. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)''

This discussion was initiated because Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

Disputed text
Section 'Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship' 

''While Argentina recognizes the British citizenship of the Falkland Islanders, the Argentine nationality legislation is inconclusive with respect to the Islanders. On an individual basis, native Falkland Islanders who have declared before the Argentine authorities that they are Argentine, have been recognized as Argentine nationals by birth.''

Draft legislation has been submitted before the Argentine Senate and Congress in order to regulate this citizenship issue by explicitly stipulating — with no prejudice to the Argentine sovereignty claim — that the Falklanders are not Argentine citizens, providing at the same time for native Islanders who declare themselves Argentine to be recognized as Argentine nationals by birth, and for those born elsewhere but resident in the Islands for at least two years to be eligible for Argentine naturalization.

Statement by Langus

 * Argentine nationality legislation is not inconclusive with respect to the Islanders. By the principle of ius soli, Argentine laws about nationality recognizes every person born under national territory as Argentineans. At the same time, Falkland Islands are considered part of Argentina and this have been formally included in the Constitution of 1994. Thus, every person born on those islands are recognized as Argentinean. This is why Alexander Betts in 1982, James Peck about a month ago, and possibly others have been given a national ID card ('DNI') stating that they are Argentineans born in the Falklands (when requested, of course). This is different from citizenship by naturalization, by ascendant, etc. There's no doubt whatsoever in current legislation. Note that Argentinean laws doesn't require for a person to have only one nationality (i.e. they can be British by ius sanguinis).


 * Second paragraph refers to a bill proposed in 2003 that, even if its summary is valid as a reliable reference for current Argentinean legislation, has no possible effect over it because by 2005 it had lost its chances of being discussed in the chambers. Even before knowing that crucial fact, Martinvl, Wee Curry Monster, Pmt7ar, and myself have expressed opinion that including a piece of proposed legislation of unknown status ("unknown" by then; know we know it's even worst) is not valid to depict the Argentinean position (see Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute). Keysanger and Apcbg have expressed the opposite for various reason that they will surely share soon.

It is clear to me that a) Argentine legislation is conclusive about Falklander's citizenship; and b) including the now historical bill as Argentina's position violates WP:UNDUE to say the least. -- Langus (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction to Keysanger's statement

 * Correction: as Pmt7ar noted, citizenship is defined in Law 346, not the Constitution. And I am no expert on this, (moreover, that wouldn't matter) that's why I always cite my sources:.
 * Regards. -- Langus (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Major corrections to WCM's statement

 * Throwing into the air WP policies doesn't mean they apply as you state, specially when your argumentation is based on "repetitive errors". It's the 5th or 6th time you allege that the Argentine Government refers to the population as "illegal" yet for what I know that is FALSE, you have never referenced properly that claim, even when you have been asked to.
 * Sources for the Argentine legislation has been presented since the beginning, and you can find them in my statement.
 * Regarding WP:OR, for the second time, it is not: I have translated Terragno's analysis yesterday during the discussion. Check the link as you've obviously missed my reply.
 * The allegation of WP:NPOV to support removal of that section is, at best, ironic. To have a neutral point of view would be to be able to express every party's position without fears and clearly, just as sources present it. In any case a "British position regarding..." could be created to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of just removing content, once the Argentine position is correctly described. --Langus (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I observe WCM is twisting words again and refuses to acknowledge that those sources are void for his claims. Note that they refer to an illegal occupation or an illegal presence. That is not the same as calling the Falklanders "illegal", as those expressions are talking about the British ruling, not necessarily about the people born in the islands (which are Argentine by birth according to current legislation).
 * Quote: "Equally problematic for me, is that frequently the Argentine Government states that the population is "illegal"." --WCM
 * Quote: "The response was to quibble and claim they didn't say the presence in the islands was illegal". --WCM
 * Bottom line, I'm still waiting for sources. -- Langus (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Keysanger
Paragraph 1)

Argentine legislation over citizenship is a fiction, that says Argentine Senator Terragno in his rationale for a new citizenship law. The reference is PROYECTO DE LEY.

He is, contrary to Langus, an expert on this matter. An objective analisys of the situation shows that:


 * Falklandres don't pay tax in Argentina
 * Falklanders don't vote in Argentina
 * Falklanders didn't conscript in Argentina
 * Falklanders don't got money from Argentina
 * Falklandres have to get an ID-Card to live in Buenos Aires.

Paragraph 2)

Citizenship is one of the most importants rules of Constitution. Any attempt to change the rules of citizenship reflects profound dissatisfaction with the current situation of the law. Therefore the changes are minor when the law works: List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. If there is a such list, then the article needs two sentences about the propoused change.

About other arguments, you know my stance:


 * 1) ) This draft legislation has no chances now of being discussed in the chambers. It has lost relevance. False
 * 2) ) Of course, this is Argentina's POV, but that's precisely the section's subject. False
 * 3) ) You know I think that's not correct [ : the legislation is not applied or it is inconclusive ] . It is said by an Authority and it is reliable sourced
 * 4) ) Too much weight is being put on the bill. False

Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 13:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For God's sake!, what is an illegal presence whithout the Falklanders?. Who is meaned if not the Falklanders? the pinguins or the wind?. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 12:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by pmt7ar
Paragraph 1) Senator Terragno opinion is being misused to represent the whole country opinion. Plus, one of the sources, the bill Keysanger just linked, has two different parts and its being misused. There is a part of analysis of the current legislation, the impossibility of execute it, and the very proposal of the bill. The same source, by the same senator says "under our legislations, natives of those islands are argentine" (SUMMARY, pirst paragraph, second sentence). That is, if any can be extracted from his source, the argentien position. The rest is his personal opinion. About Keysanger analogy, I have to say it has no sense. Maybe if some difference between the concepts of natural and citizen from different countries. For Argentina, (as so says senator Terragno), islanders are naturals, and all naturals are citizenship. That they don't execute their rights is another matter. On argentina you have the right to marry, but if you don't do it, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to do it. In argentina everyone has the right of free upper education, if you don't enroll to a university doesn't mean you don't have those rights. In the same way, all islanders are naturals and have all the rights of a citizen, just that they -for known reasons- aren't registered. That doesn't mean they aren't citizens. If they want they can execute its rights (as proven by known cases Betts? and Pecks).

Paragraph 2) The issue with this paragraph is an enormous undue weight. Keysanger comments are failing in a few points. (a)There may be an article of List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, but this bill has nothing to do with constitution. It was a bill to modify a regular law, not a constitutional law. Comments on the previous statements:
 * 1) ) This draft legislation has no chances now of being discussed in the chambers. It has lost relevance. <- TRUE. It was dismissed by the reviewer comission, exited the parliamentary process, expired and archived. The bill will never enter the Congress and never be discussed. That's a fact proven on the talkpage. The idea can come again in a new bill, but this one is dead forever.
 * 2) ) Of course, this is Argentina's POV, but that's precisely the section's subject. <- TRUE. If you read the subsection header, you'll understand you need to state a representative position of the whole country. To be relevant it should be representative, not just authoritative.
 * 3) ) You know I think that's not correct [ : the legislation is not applied or it is inconclusive ] . It is said by an Authority and it is reliable sourced <- Its a fact that is not applied on the islands. But not that is inconclusive. Again as in "Paragraph 1", not executing a right doesn't mean they doesn't have it. Actual, though seldom, cases has proved it. The argentine position (representative) and legislations says that if any islanders comes to continent and register it, can do it as any national. There is no inconclusiveness on it. Terragno thinks (personal, no representative) that situation shouldn't happen and so gives his reason to modify a law and prevent that.
 * 4) ) Too much weight is being put on the bill. <- TRUE. Can't explain more of what is obvious. The whole paragraph describes the effects (not even the reasons, just the hypothetical "how it would be if passed") of a bill signed by himself alone (despite being authoritative, he's just one senator, 0.013% of the chamber) and rejected by the reviewer, expired and archived. If you ask me, I see the "Argentine position" in the fact of rejecting it that on the proposal itself. So if deserving any mention, it shouldn't be more that a mention (not a description) and a clear statement of its dismissal by the parliamentary process.
 * 5) ) Point 2.1.3 above, whatever the mediation results it should be eliminated. Its simply false, unsourced and misleading to give more weight to the dismissed bill. Bill never entered the Senate and less it be the Congress. It misleads about the building and the house of representatives. If any, the most accurate would be "submitted at the Senate entry desk".  pmt7ar (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk's Positions
On the first paragraph:
 * I believe that the sources that I have seen thus far are insufficient to describe the Argentine position on the matter. It is not clear to me whether the Argentine position is clear or unclear.  It is plausible that the Argentine position is currently clear, but has not historically been consistent: if so, the inconsistency should probably be mentioned.
 * While I instinctively think that the Argentine position on the islanders is an important and relevant topic for this page, I do not believe that the importance and relevance of citizenship in particular has been demonstrated, given the relative absence of reliable sources.
 * The importance of British citizenship is clearer because it is the citizenship that the vast majority islanders accept and use, and because the British Nationality Act 1981 (which made Falkland Islanders British Dependent Territories Citizens as opposed to British Citizens) was one of many signals misinterpreted by the Argentine government as suggesting that the British would not react militarily to the 1982 invasion. We should be careful not to draw a false equivalence here: with only a couple of exceptions, the application of Argentine nationality law to Falkland Islanders is hypothetical.  It is the British (or BOT) citizenship that is used in practice - even when islanders visit Argentina, as I believe the Peck case demonstrates.
 * In short, I think we need more sources here.

On the second paragraph, I find Pmt7ar's arguments persuasive: it is difficult for me to see how giving any significant weight to a five-year-old expired bill - as per the status quo - is not undue weight. That is not to say that I think it cannot be used as a source (though it should not be the sole source in my view, particularly given the differences in opinion as to what it is saying) nor that I could not be persuaded to change my mind based on evidence from reliable sources.

All in all, what I think is needed here is sources that describe the situation in general terms - preferably sources on the subject of the dispute in general. From mediation, what we need is for a bit of calming influence and structure to the discussion and a calming outside influence to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in some of the discussions. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by WCM
The problem for me is this is supposed to be an official Argentine position. Great then we should be able to have a source for that shouldn't we? But having asked for one, none has been forthcoming. An opinion expressed by an Argentine politician pressing legislation is not an official Argentine position, nor is an opinion expressed in an Argentine legal paper. Yet both are being presented as WP:FACT and the "official" Argentine position.

Equally problematic for me, is that frequently the Argentine Government states that the population is "illegal". This seems at odds with this simple statement and worryingly statements at the UN are airily dismissed as not relevant.

Then there is interpretation of primary sources, such as legislation, combined with interpretation of the Argentine position on territory that is classic WP:OR. And as Apcbg points out, even that is problematic as the legislation states the territory is not under Argentine sovereignty at this time.

The whole section for me is problematic as it seems to fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL and is heavily reliant on presenting a range of opinions.

So whilst I would agree with Pfainuk that a section on the Argentine view of the status of the islanders is a topic for this article, I am far from convinced this should be solely restricted to a narrow interpretation based on a few opinions of Argentine law - because this would fail under the core policy of WP:NPOV. Personally I would remove what is currently there for that reason and start again.

And start from the basis of reflecting the weight of opinion in the literature. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I observe a claim made that I have provided no sources, I did Diff. The response was to quibble and claim they didn't say the presence in the islands was illegal. See quotes below, with bolding.

Some quotes:



"The Malvinas case offers a definite situation concerning the presence of the English, which was illegal from the very beginning because it violated the treatiesthat backed Argentina by virtue of the succession of States. The said presence was also illegal because it breached a peace and amity treaty in order to achieve a territorialconquest over-insular spaces which publicly and pacifically belonged, as real owner, to the argentine jurisdiction, without being discussed neither in the treaty of 1825, nor inthe previous acknowledgement of the argentine State



Argentina has repeatedly shown its willingness to engage in constructive, sincere and open dialogue to improve bilateral cooperation, especially through temporary understandings under the sovereignty formula, provided that cooperation on practical aspects related with the illegally occupied territories contributes to create an appropriate context to resume sovereignty negotiations.

Since its creation, Argentina achieved the inclusion of its sovereign claim in the international agenda, a purpose which was achieved in 1965 with the recognition of the existence of the sovereignty conflict as a consequence of the British illegal occupation of that portion of the Argentine national territory.

BTW the latter reference is published by the official Argentine parliament "observatory" on Falkland affairs. Note the sources clearly support the point, whilst a source stating the proposed edit is the official Argentine position has been lacking. I presume an official Government publication stating a position is considered authorative on the matter. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion section
I believe the activity over the last few days illustrates why this has gone nowhere. Huge tracts of argumentative text raising multiple issues and ignoring my plea to tackle ONE at a time. If I may, the first question I would ask is whether this section should exist at all. The section relies on WP:OR in the first place. The argument of both is that Argentuine law says (A), Argentina claims the Falklands (B) and therefore under Argentine law (A) + (B) means (C) Falklanders are Argentine citizens. This is classic WP:OR - you need a reliable secondary source to make that synthesis, you can't do it yourself. And please before you post reams of argument, let the mediator make a comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, focus on one (I'd prefer for the second paragraph since its easier to consent its removal). I'm really not much into the first paragraph, so I don't have any strong conviction, but yes, IMO actually its WP:OR but that's because nobody is using (or misusing) the sources. We have the very Terragno's bill saying (C) (SUMMARY, first paragraph, second sentence), but that's a primary source (an archive), and a paper from an university posted shared last year (secondary source, clearly stating A+B=C, so we had a reliable source interpretating the law and save us the risk of WP:OR and lawering ). Yet none is used (and the first, Terragno' bill is being misused). There is no inconclusiveness or contradiction on the argentine position or legislation (in the legislation there are some undefined issues, but that's all, undefined -I think Terragno called it grey zones or lagunas-). We do have plenty of contradictions in the opinions, Terragno himself disapproving the current flexibility of the law. I could see another approach, inconclusiveness from presidents speeches, since its the representative of the state. I'm sure all the presidents have said different things and addressing differently on the issue that could allow us to talk about inconclusiveness. But that's not adressed on that section. It's currently saying the legislation is the one inconclusive, and that I disagree.  pmt7ar  (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @WCM: you're confused. The synthesis is not OR; you can find it in both sources (Terragno's summary and the Primeras Jornadas sobre Nacionalidad):
 * La nacionalidad argentina se basa predominantemente en el hecho del nacimiento de la persona dentro del territorio nacional (principio de nacionalidad natural: art. 75 inc. 12, Const. Nac.; art. 1 inc. 1, ley 346). Por lo que alcanza a los nacidos en las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, que son parte integrante del territorio argentino. (Primeras Jornadas...) | English: "Argentine nationality is based primarily on the event of birth under national territory. Because of that, it applies to those born on Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur, which are part of Argentine territory."
 * La Constitución Nacional establece que las islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos e insulares correspondientes “son parte integrante del territorio nacional”. A la vez, las leyes sobre nacionalidad consideran argentinos a todos los que “nazcan en el territorio de la República”. Por lo tanto, para nuestra ley, los nativos de esas islas son argentinos. (Terragno, saying exactly "A+B=C") | English: "National Constitution establishes that islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur and the related maritime spaces are "integral part of national territory". At the same time, laws about nationality consider to be Argentine to all who are "born in territory of the Republic". Therefore, to our law, people born on those islands are Argentine."
 * Ironically, these kind of errors force me to spread walls of texts constantly. But you can't say it's original research, you need to pay attention to the references. We're trying to put in the article what reliable sources say about it.
 * About removing the whole section, I think it's a terrible idea, and it would be truly regreatable if we remove sourced text only because of different viewpoints.
 * Regards -- Langus (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Equally WP:FACT not WP:OPINION, you seem unable to separate the two. And I did suggest you waited for a mediator's comment.  Also, English wikipedia, so supplying a translation is helpful.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion of remaining silent to your erroneous statement about the section being WP:OR was considered detrimental to the mediation. I'm sure everyone can see the need for a speedy response. I'll provide a translation now that I have more time, sorry about that. Regards. -- Langus (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Apcbg — One sees half of the picture conveniently omitted here. The above “A+B=C” would have been the Argentine position on the issue if the Argentine Constitution were to end by stating that the Islands “are an integral part of the National territory”. But that is not the case. The same transitory article goes on to state instead that “The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty ... are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.” Thus the Constitution confirms that the Islands are not effectively possessed and Argentine Law does not necessarily apply there. So says Terragno, a reliable secondary source: “Esta última parte de la disposición transitoria implica que la Constitución misma reconoce que la Nación Argentina: — No posee lo que debe “recuperar”; — No ejerce soberanía sobre esos territorios.” (“This last part of the transitory article implies that the Constitution itself recognises that the Argentine nation — One does not possess what one has to “recover” — does not exercise sovereignty over these territories.”)  The issue of applicability of Argentine Law – or lack of it – to the Islands and the Islanders is essential to this article and it surely would not benefit from a removal of the content here discussed. As for the alleged disbalance, if there are opinions different from that of Terragno's then bring them in, adequately sourced. If not then there is no disbalance. Apcbg (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're bonding sovereignty with nationality, mixing both in your analysis, and that's not necessarily true. Each country has its own laws ("rules") about nationality, and none of them requires "international permission" to say who is a citizen who is not. --Langus (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right but it is precisely nationality that Terragno considers: “Frente a esta situación de hecho, es claro que la ley no puede considerar a los nacidos en las islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, de igual manera que a los nacidos en Jujuy, Córdoba o Chubut. No porque las islas no formen — al igual que dichas provincias — parte del territorio nacional, sino porque las islas están sujetas a leyes y autoridades extranjeras. ... No puede entenderse, tampoco, que la obligación de sujetarse al “principio de nacionalidad natural” implique que la ley deba considerar argentinos oriundos a los nacidos en un territorio que la Nación Argentina reivindica como propio, pero de los cuales no tiene la posesión y sobre los cuales no ejerce imperium.” (Given this de facto situation, it is clear that the law cannot consider those born in the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands in the same way as those born in Jujuy, Córdoba or Chubut.  Not because the islands do not form — in the same way as those named provinces — part of the national territory, but only because the islands are subject to foreign laws and authorities. ... Nor can it be understood that the obligation under the “principle of natural nationality” implies that the law has to consider as native Argentines those born on a territory that the Argentine nation claims as her own, but over which she has no possession and over which she exercises no power.) Apcbg (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is correct, and a good translation. You can see there that sovereignty and nationality are treated independently. But one has to bear in mind that Terragno is not talking about what he reads from current legislation.. that is expressed at the beginning. This is Terragno's viewpoint about how nationality should be, and proposes to modify it. But:
 * It's only one senator of the many that have passed in last 10 years;
 * It's an opinion, a reliable one, but it's not legislation;
 * It was dismissed or ignored in a commission of peers, which tells something about Argentine position;
 * It was archived in 2005 for which it can't become legislation.
 * Regards. -- Langus (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by “current legislation”? Best, Apcbg (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It means the legislation. Terragno may say "it is clear that the law cannot consider those born in the Falkland Islands(...) in the same way as those born in Jujuy(...)", but that's only his personal opinion. The fact, is that it DOES. Its a kind of spanish narrative, taking that as a statement is taking it out of context. He uses that narrative as a way to express rejection to the current state, and the current state is doing exactly that, putting in the same bag those born on the islands than from the continent. Translating isn't just replacing words, you have to keep in mind the context.  pmt7ar (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, one opinion, one of many. Thats the point, the edit you propose presents only one of many opinions. And I don't see Apcbg's translation as taking anything out of context.  You're too quick to dismiss elements of your source that contradict the simple edit you want to make.  NPOV requires that you reflect the range of opinions in the mainstream literature.  Aside from anything else not one source has expressed an Argentine Government position, you've given examples of publications where people have expressed their opinion.  What we need are facts. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then at least should we call thing by its name. We should not include any opinion if its not representative as a whole. It's very, very misleading and inaccurate to portray a personal opinion of a single man as relevant to the position of the whole country, even more when that opinion was dismissed by a more representative organism. It doesn't matter how authoritative a senator can be on the subject, if his arguments where dismissed by the reviewers and disregarded as to not even be worth of discussion at a parliament (which it IS representative of Argentina's position), then its by no means relevant to Argentina's position. Who are you to say its relevant when our very parliament says it isn't? Who is more representative of a country position, you, a sole senator, or a reviewer commission of a parliament? (plus its not notable, had not any media coverage less it be international coverage. it's there because its an official archive, primary source. anything submitted gets archived, there are email hoaxes and even wikipedia copy&paste among other shameful things on the Congress archive). Giving undue weight is not NPOV.  pmt7ar (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole point is you haven't even produced one authoritive source to represent the position of the whole country, you present opinions that you happen to agree with it and thats the edit you want to go with and neglect other opinions. That is WP:UNDUE and that is WP:POV.  You're trying to construct an argument to exclude an opinion that contradicts your edit and that is not WP:NPOV.  We should present all relevant opinions from mainstream literature.
 * The whole section falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL anyway, as it is presenting legal theory and opinions about entirely hypothetical situations. I still say get rid of it.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My only position is that I reject a single person opinion, dismissed by the parliament, as representative as a country position. You may call that my POV, as its why I call common sense, a single man opinion is not more relevant to a country position than the whole parliament. As for edits, I never redacted anything on the article, I only pointed that the sources were being misused, portraying them as something they are not. And thank you for recognize that talking about the bill falls in WP:CRYSTAL, and since I provided the source it was dismissed and expired its not hypothetical anymore, since its for sure it would never apply (at least not that very bill). It single mention would fall in WP:UNDUE now, though I never understood why was there on the first place, it doesn't sustain notability, relevancy and was WP:CRYSTAL from its nature itself. pmt7ar (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole section we're discussing is covered by WP:CRYSTAL, all of it speculation about a hypothetical legal situation. This is not an excuse to remove an opinion you don't like and then keep the ones you do.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me, as I noted above, that this entire discussion is crying out for better sourcing. I suggest that if we want to present the Argentine government position on this matter, we should find a book or government document that describes the Argentine government position and describes it in general terms (i.e. not looking through the lens of a single specific event). A single legal opinion by a legislator appears to me not to cut it.

If no such sources are available, then I believe we must conclude that this entire point is, despite many of our instincts, undue weight for this section. In that case it should be removed altogether. Pfainuk talk 22:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Allow me to insist with this reference: Primeras Jornadas sobre el Regimen Juridico de la Nacionalidad Argentina (roughly "First Seminar on Judicial Regime of Argentine Nationality"), backed by the Argentine Foreign Office (Cancillería Argentina). In there, Mario Oyarzábal (Deputy Consul of Argentina in New York and member of the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, specialized in Nationality Law) says that "La nacionalidad argentina se basa predominantemente en el hecho del nacimiento de la persona dentro del territorio nacional (principio de nacionalidad natural: art. 75 inc. 12, Const. Nac.; art. 1 inc. 1, ley 346). Por lo que alcanza a los nacidos en las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, que son parte integrante del territorio argentino. In English: "Argentine nationality is based primarily on the event of birth under national territory. Because of that, it applies to those born on Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur, which are part of Argentine territory."
 * You won't find a more clear and official statement about the "Argentine government position" than this. "Qui potest capere, capiat" -- el que quiera entender, que entienda.
 * Regards. -- Langus (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Link does not work. However, that is not a statement of Argentine Government policy or position, that is the opinion of the individual concerned.  You have this inability to separate WP:FACT from WP:OPINION.  You dismiss other opinions such as Terragno that disagree with this opinion.  I will do no more that note your bad faith attack on my comments, rather than any attempt to discuss the matter.  Wee Curry Monster talk 10:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. The rest is nonsense:
 * Governments are made of individuals, and this one is part of the Argentine Government. The seminar is hosted by the Argentine Government. What would be good enough for you, a signed note by CFK??
 * Terragno says exactly the same as this source. He also thinks the law should be changed, but that's another subject (see: second paragraph).
 * Search James Peck for policy application and confirmation of WP:FACT.
 * Regards. --Langus (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Governments make statements that set out their policy, if it is policy then it should be readily available. You have been repeatedly asked for such a source but pointedly none has been provided.
 * Your source does not sustain the edit you wish to make, it is an individual setting out their opinion at a seminar. Terragno does not say the same as this source, he flatly contradicts it, the translation is above for all to see.  Neither does your Google search sustain the edit you wish to make.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Langnus, who represents better "Argentina", an unknown Mario Oyarzábal or Senator Terragno?, whose opinion should we have anyway there then?. --Keysanger (what?) 12:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Oyarzábal's statement is a perfectly reliable and usable source. Apart of being an individual (like each of us I presume :-)) he is also an official Government representative and moreover, a consulate official; under the Argentine Citizenship Law the country's consulates abroad have competences in citizenship matters.  We do not have to weigh different sources but present here different opinions, adequately sourced.  In this case we have those of Oyarzábal and Terragno, and I believe they both are relevant and ought to be included in the article as they illustrate the situation explained there. Apcbg (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Apcbg that would be a sustainable edit, if it were presented as the opinion of those individuals but not as a statement of official policy. Again if there is a policy, it should be easily sourced.  But again I question whether this falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL as inevitably this is speculation about legal theory.  As such is it encyclopedic content?  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is fricking crazy, we need formal mediation here. --Langus (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so: formal mediation tends to take a very long time (several months) to get started, in my experience - and it may never actually happen.  I also don't think we've exhausted Medcab yet.  Discussion so far has demonstrated to me that we need a mediator who is actively mediating the dispute.  Jeff appears so far to be trying to arbitrate the dispute: this is not what mediators are supposed to do (see WP:MEDCABNOT - the idea isn't to tell us what to do but to help us find agreement), and it isn't proving particularly productive.  I suggest that if he isn't willing to mediate the dispute we should consider requesting a new mediator. Pfainuk talk 17:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * “... speculation about legal theory”? Speculation about which and whose legal theory?  Could you source it?
 * As for the Argentine policy on citizenship, citizenship is not based on executive power political decisions but is embodied in the relevant citizenship legislation and its application. We have that as primary sources which the article does not explain or analyze as that would be original research, but we have that done in the quoted secondary sources.  This is the right way of dealing with the matter I believe. Apcbg (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Apcbg, it is speculative as Argentina does not exercise sovereignty over the Falklands, although it claims the territory. I agree with your comments on secondary sources but note that in each case it is the opinion on the individual concerned.  The proposed edit professes to give an authorative description of the Argentine Government position and it is this I do not see as sustainable.  I rather suspect we are more in agreement than disagreement on that matter.  Where I think we differ is whether the opinions of individuals merirs inclusion on encyclopedic content.  Am I wrong?  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wee, I'm not sure we are in agreement on this one as you recommend the removal of the relevant article text which I don't. I have difficulties in understanding your and Pfainuk's “individual” thing.  What, pray, are the secondary sources if not the opinion of competent individuals? Apcbg (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly it appears we are talking at cross purposes. Yes the secondary sources are the opinion of competent individuals, there we agree.  Where we disagree is whether their opinion has merit as encyclopedic content.  As Argentine does not exercise sovereignty its a moot point and per WP:CRYSTAL wikipedia does not in general include speculation about hypotheticals.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. My point on inclusion is that to be included in an article on the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, we ought to be able to demonstrate that the point is relevant to the dispute.  The best way of doing this is through reliable sources on the subject.


 * I don't care that this source happens to be the legal opinion of an individual - his experience suggests that he is probably fairly reliable. But I feel that it could be improved by the addition of more sources - particularly given that there is dispute as to how we should interpret this one.  Given the official statements that some have brought up that appear to contradict the view that islanders are Argentine citizens at birth, I think this would help clarify matters and reduce the scope for interpretation here.


 * My other issue is that this is a source specifically about Argentine citizenship law as it applies to the Falklands. I feel that we really need to see sources that are trying to do roughly the same thing that we're trying to do, and judge how much weight they give to this point.  We should be basing the weight that this point gets in this article on the amount that others give it. Pfainuk talk 19:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, Terragno's bill clearly explains how the point is relevant to the dispute (I can translate all the summary if needed, but I think it has been done already). And you have expressed in your statement that you "instinctively think that the Argentine position on the islanders is an important and relevant topic for this page". So I'd say there's no question about that point.

Regards. -- Langus (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you miss my point. A random Wikipedia editor might think that the price of onions is relevant to this article, but that doesn't make it so.  The weight we give to points in this article should be based not on our instincts but on the weight given to those points by scholarly reliable sources on the subject.  So far, I don't recall having seen evidence that any scholarly reliable source on the subject of this dispute - and Terragno does not fall into this category (as his piece is legislation on the subject of Argentine nationality law) - even mentions the Argentine position on islanders' citizenship.  If no such source is forthcoming I think the only conclusion I can reach is that the appropriate weight for this point is none at all. Pfainuk talk 09:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you point to a WikiPolicy? I think that's not quite right. Otherwise writing a complete article would be a bureaucracy hell. -- Langus (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT. Particularly relevant quotes are:


 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
 * Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.


 * Now, for the most part we can fairly easily get the weight roughly right without resorting to detailed analysis of sources. But even then, having a rough idea of how much weight a point is given by reliable sources is useful.  If we're going into a lot of detail about a point that reliable sources on the subject of the dispute ignore, we're probably doing something wrong. Pfainuk talk 19:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I mean the policy for which we need "scholarly reliable sources" that Terragno doesn't satisfy. -- Langus (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Terragno is not a source on the subject of the dispute. Pretty plainly we shouldn't be counting the weight given to a point by reliable sources regardless of context.  In terms of its intentions, this is a primary source: proposed legislation written by a legislator.  Further, the subject that Terragno is discussing is Argentine nationality law (and how he wishes to change it), not the dispute.


 * Let me give you an example of the problem here. Let's say that we have a biography of Charles Darwin as a source.  That source may well describe the islands at the time of Darwin's visits in the 1830s.  As such, it could be used as a source for an article such as this, to verify facts.  But it's probably going to give a lot more weight than we should on the conditions at the time of Darwin's visit, and is likely to give a lot less weight to other significant points, such as the Falklands War and the modern situation.  If we used it to measure weight, we would be measuring the importance of points to the life of Charles Darwin, not their importance to the Falklands sovereignty dispute.  That wouldn't be the appropriate weight for this article.  I contend that using Terragno to measure the weight to be given to points here is doing essentially the same thing. Pfainuk talk 07:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I repeat: Terragno's bill clearly explains how the point is relevant to the dispute. I'll translate this time: "Current legislation fails to consider the special case of those who are born on an illegaly occupied portion of national territory, and who consider themselves subjects of the British Crown. This gap could be used to simulate a contradiction between what our country sustains in its sovereignity claims and what is established in its internal legislation." 
 * If he is a primary source that doesn't mean we are supposed to disregard him. I quote from WP:PRIMARY: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages". I stress WP:COMMONSENSE.
 * Regards. --Langus (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that you stress WP:COMMONSENSE here. To my mind, if the only source we can find in all the world of literature on the Falklands dispute that discusses the Argentine position on the islanders' citizenship in general terms is an eight-year-old bill that was submitted to the Argentine Congress with one signature, and that was never voted on, the only common sense conclusion is that the point isn't relevant enough to be included in an overview article on that dispute.  And that would go regardless of whether the source was primary, secondary or tertiary.  We shouldn't be that far out of kilter from the sources.


 * Now, that's not to say necessarily that it is the only source that discusses it. But it's one of the reasons why I've been asking for more.


 * Is it a primary source? I think for some purposes it is and for some purposes it isn't.  Terragno's analysis of the status quo I would judge as a secondary source for our purposes.  But I would note that he didn't put it in a text book or a paper.  He has his own intentions here: to change Argentine law.  For the purposes of determining how much weight this point should get, I think it thus belongs on the primary end.


 * While I appreciate what Terragno said, that's his opinion. I'm looking for the views of the authors of reliable secondary sources on the subject of the dispute in general here, and I haven't so far seen evidence that they consider it particularly significant. Pfainuk talk 17:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Pfainuk, now I can see your point, and I can see that it is ill-founded too.  Terragno is a source on the subject of the dispute.  His analysis of both the sovereignty claim dispositions in the Argentine Constitution and the general inapplicability of the Argentine legislation to the Islands and the Islanders is a secondary source par excellence.  His proposed legislation is just one particular consequence, and it is only in that part that Terragno is a primary source.  Your Darwin example explicates your fallacy too:  Darwin does not base his biological theory on his analysis of the Falklands War, while Terragno does base his citizenship considerations precisely on his analysis of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal X
I see that we dont come further any more. Perhaps is the word "inconclusive" the biggest obstacle in the text. My proposal is Could we write instead of the word "inconclusive" some short sentence that describes the facts (no tax, no vote, no conscript, no allowed to live in BA, fiction)?

Concrete, that would be :


 * ''While Argentina recognizes the British citizenship of the Falkland Islanders, the Argentine legislation can't be applied in the Islands and has been called a fiction ((ref)) because Falklanders can't vote, can't conscript, don't pay taxes, etc in Argentina. On an individual basis, native Falkland Islanders who have declared before the Argentine authorities that they are Argentine, have been recognized as Argentine nationals by birth.

Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While I'm sure your effort is genuine, it doesn't address the dispute as described at the beginning: under Argentine law, Falklanders are Argentine. Your proposal not only fails to mention that, but also still says that they are recognized "on an individual basis", as if this has to be approved by some authority, giving exactly the opposite idea (inconclusiveness in the law). Also note that in the following sentence:
 * "While Argentina recognizes the British citizenship (...), the Argentine legislation can't be applied in the Islands"
 * the use of 'while' doesn't make sense: both clauses are against the Argentine position.
 * Finally, saying that "has been called a fiction", even if referenced, seems a bit harsh. In any case I'm sure it could be explained in a more neutral/polite manner, if we have the references of weight to source it.
 * And on more thing: Falklanders can vote, etc. if they move to mainland (e.g. James Peck). They can exercise their rights there, even if obligations (conscription, taxes) can't be enforced in the Islands.
 * Regards. -- Langus (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I envy you your powerful English proficiency. You can write English so good: "Falklanders can vote, etc.". That sounds as though Islands Falklands were a neighborhood between Barrio Belgrano and Barrio La Boca.
 * Joking aside, I propose a three phase solution:
 * facts determination
 * take the best wording proposal
 * analisys of proposal regarding WP:Due weight, WP:importance, equal validity, impartial tone, etc.
 * back to (improved) wording proposal or voting the proposal
 * Well, let us go a little bit deeper to find _ALL_ the facts. We should differenciate between the legislation and the people's factual situation. That is, how should it be and how is it. At this stage of the discussion I think that every one in the group agree that:
 * Argentine legislation forsee both citizenships for the Falklanders, A. and B. citizenship or as you say "under Argentine law, Falklanders are Argentine". That is a fact whithin of the A. law.
 * Only 3 Falklanders had became Argentine citizens in the last years. That is a fact regarding the population of the islands.
 * no vote, no tax, no conscript, no money, no schools from Argentina. Falklanders always drive on the wrong side of the street and speak the wrong language.
 * Except the 3, no one of the Falklanders want to be Argentine citizen.
 * Argentine citizenship is considered a dangerous fiction by the vicepresidente de la comisión de relaciones exteriores of the Argentine Senate.
 * That are all facts that we have to consider in the paragraph. Are they all?. Do you agree?
 * Before we continue to discuss, we have to agree about the facts. Keysanger (what?) 13:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. That are all facts we must consider, but not in that paragraph. Everyone knows the facts pretty well. No one doubts Argentina doesn't excercise any kind of sovereignty on the islands. But don't mix it under the label of "Argentine position". You're proposing to minimize the fact of its positions (the "Falklanders are Argentine") and cover it with the islanders, UK or international facts. That is not neutral. If we dedicate a space for Argentina's position we should respect it even if some doesn't like it. We have the rest of the article and almost all on the taskgroup to clarify the factual situation. On early 2010 we couldn't reach a consensus to state all relevant positions equally (islanders, UK, Argentina and international). I'm sorry for that, but if we are stating the Argentine position I wont agree nothing but the Argentine position. All the "while", "but" and wording to disregard it can be on another section and discuss weight later.  pmt7ar  (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the facts, in your opinion, that should be considered in the paragraph 1? . Please be explicit and binding. Keysanger (what?) 17:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I must say I came to the exact opposite conclusion from the James Peck case. One of the striking things about Peck is that he has been living in Argentina since 2006, but was not recognised as an Argentine citizen until June 14 this year. His stated reason for taking Argentine citizenship was practical: he had recently separated from his (Argentine) wife, and "found that was complicated because he held a British passport". If it was true that he was already an Argentine citizen before June, then the fact that he held a British passport should surely have been irrelevant? Surely he should not have needed to go through the ceremony on 14 June to meet his aim of being able to live near his children? You say "Falklanders can vote" in Argentina, but do we have any evidence that Peck could have voted as an Argentine citizen before he asked the government for citizenship? Pfainuk talk 17:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bravo!, I agree with you Pfainuk, but, please, don't lose the path. Lets determine first what for facts we want to discuss. I repeat the question for Pmt7ar: What are the facts, in your opinion, that should be considered in the paragraph 1? . Please be explicit and binding.


 * And indent your contrib correctly!. Keysanger (what?) 18:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, what should be stated under that section is only what responds to that subsection itself. i.e. Argentine position about islanders citizenship. For that purpose, the only valid points are those official and representative of the, I look dumb pointing the obvious but well, Argentine position. Opinions, actual facts and anything else is part of the controversy, not a part of the arg. position. Put it somewhere else, but not as its position. Something official and representive are the constitution and law itself (primary source), interpretations of the same by authoritative sources (an university and a senator, both secondary sources), or declaration of the president or congress (like president speeches or the fact of dismissing the bill). Everything else is not part of the argentine position. Even Terragno recognices it, but then he exposes it factual fails and proposes a modification. Why do you people insist ignoring the only important and centering on a private opinion already dismissed?. pmt7ar (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I drew more or less the same conclusion as Pfainuk from the facts presented. If I may observe the whole section is a POV minefield.  Narrowly limited to the Argentine position on the citizenship of the Falkland Islands, well this leads to statements like "I wont agree nothing but the Argentine position."  Sorry but the wiki way is WP:NPOV.  It is better in my opinion to delete what we have and start again.
 * What is actually relevant would be to write a section on the Argentine position on the Falklanders. As the currently narrow remit is to paint a rosy picture seriously at odds with the facts. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

pmt7ar's proposal doesn't meet Wikipedia's principle of a neutral point of view and moreover it would not be very encyclopedic to repeat the content of the law xyz and to hide how looks the reality out there.

I think the current version of the section represents very well all arguments presented in the discussion and should remain in place. Neither Langnus nor Pmt7ar have presented facts not described in the current version. Their critics about undue weight aren't based on reliable sources but WP:OR.

If we delete the whole section the discussion will be longer and more intensive as pmt7ar promised.. --Keysanger (what?) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Pfainuk: if a man born in Buenos Aires wants to vote, but he doesn't have his DNI (national ID card), he can't do it. If he wants to exit the country to visit his children in Montevideo, he can't do it. If he wants to marry, he can't do it. Do you get the point or do I really have to explain it? James Peck only needed to go to the "registro civil" in Tierra del Fuego (southern state) and ask for a birth certificate to an unknown government employee.
 * @ Keysanger: I agree 100% with Pmt7ar. Most of those facts have nothing to do with "Argentina's position on Falklanders' citizenship". You are the one who's losing the path here with all these questions, mixing "sovereignty" with "nationality".
 * Seriously people, this is unbelievable. Why in the world did you include an "Argentine position" section if you didn't intend to show it as it truly is??? "Sorry but the wiki way is NPOV"  HA!!!!!!! -- Langus (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You could K.O. me by simply changing the header, "Argentine opinions about..." or "Argentine situation about...". I just step in on this because in short, the current state is lying. It's calling the Argentine position something that isn't, mixing "but"s, facts, and even personal opinions as if they were representative. My issue here (1st paragraph) is simply that, its calling something as Arg position when it isn't.  pmt7ar (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC) To clarify my point: [] ''(4). An opinion, stand or stance.''. So if Islanders doesn't want to be Argentine, if Argentine doesn't excercise sovereignty, if intl law doesn't allow it, absolutely nothing external is relevant to Argentina's position/stand/stance. So IF mentioning Argentina's position, mixing it with external issues, whenever they are facts, sourced or anything, is misleading. And to be called Argentina's at least it should be representative. i.e. personal opinions, even from authoritative sources are not enough.  pmt7ar (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

2.Paragraph
I think, the question about the second paragraph is resolved:
 * User:Langus-TxT --> want to delete the 2.§
 * User:Pmt7ar --> doesn't care about 2.§
 * User:Keysanger --> want to keep the 2.§
 * User:Apcbg --> want to keep the 2.§
 * User:Wee Curry Monster --> want to keep the 2.§
 * User:Pfainuk --> want to keep the 2.§

Right?. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 10:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ehm... no. I do think its resolved too, but towards removal:
 * User:Langus-TxT --> want to delete the 2.§ --> yes, he agrees overweight and accepts a consensus in that direction
 * User:Pmt7ar --> doesn't care much about first paragraph. I'm a strong supporter of its removal. I even removed it myself, agreed WCM proposal to removal, and pretty much I'm the main requester of removing the mention of the bill.
 * User:Wee Curry Monster --> he proposed its removal. accepts consensus in that direction too and he's "ambivalent" to include it.
 * User:Pfainuk --> recognices over weight
 * User:Martinvl agreeing removal (ct: "we are justified in removing it")
 * User:Keysanger --> want to keep the 2.§
 * User:Apcbg --> want to keep the 2.§
 * If taling about the second paragraph, there are more lights of a consensus to remove it completely. Specially now we have references it ended in nothing, its not notable (at least no references about repercussion in the media), and overweight/irrelevant for that subsection (if you don't see the overweight, is the proposal of one single man as the relevant to the WHOLE country position, against the rejection from a more representative legislative process). The bill could be included on his own article, since its relevant to his career. But the bill is not relevant to argentine position.  pmt7ar (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're correct in that I'm ambivalent, as is Pfainuk and I don't think Martin has a strong opinion either way. However, I don't see a consensus for removal as the balance of argument is even.  At the moment there isn't a consensus to remove, sorry.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think Pfainuk and Martin are being ambivalent, as they have provided mild opinion towards lack of weight and nothing more (read Pfainuk's statement above). Still, we don't have consensus, that's why we need the mediator. For the rest, I agree with Pmt7ar's lecture, noting that is properly backed with diffs, as we said we would do when we began this mediation process (which has gone awry again). We should all stop throwing new arguments in and just wait for Jeff. -- Langus (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal X2
Pmt7qr refuses any mention of critics or dissenting opinions about the "Argentine position" under the subtitle "Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship". Furthermore, Langnus silence seems to support Pmt7er's demand.

Is it posible for the others editors to accept Pmt7er's intransigence but to add directly a subsection called "????" that mention other points of views regarding the socalled "A. position"?

That would looks like:

What about that?. --Keysanger (what?) 18:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would accept those points as suitable for composing an edit, it includes several points that I feel are crucial for a balanced view, while the counter proposal below does not. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal Y
While I agree with Pmt7ar that the bill has no due weight to present it as the Argentine position, I think it could be possible to mention it in the following way:

"Even though it is possibly rejected by the UK and countries that are against Argentina's sovereignty claim, current Argentine legislation considers Falkland Islands to be part of its territory and therefore, by the principle of jus soli contemplated in Argentina's laws, people born on those islands are Argentine by birth (to Argentina).{ref Terragno's summary; Oyarzabal} There has been cases of falklanders being grant a DNI (national ID card) that states they were born in Argentina. {ref news}

This controversial situation has been challenged in the past by Argentine legislators,{ref Terragno} but it remains unchanged."

Please do not reject my proposal alleging grammar errors or poor style... that can be corrected.

Regards. -- Langus (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is a step in the right direction.
 * We noted that in the course of time a lot of flaws of the Argentine legislation appeared in the discussion (see short list Proposal X2 above). The wording "This controversial situation" is far from satisfy the strong requirements of Wikipedia. We must say what are the objectionable points, of course, with the needed references.
 * I still think that to separate is the better solution. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 13:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be OK, if the objection is made by an authoritative person. Terragno could be one, but the list above contains a lot of original research, most of it unsourced. In fact, I can positively say that besides Terragno the only source of controversy I know is this talk page.
 * Regards. -- Langus (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here we go:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="background: silber; color: black"


 * Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship
 * Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship

The current Argentine legislation considerer the Falklanders as Argentine because they are born in Argentine territories.

Situation of the Falklanders within the Argentine claim

(the text should contains following items:)
 * they don't vote, pay taxes, conscript, etc
 * they are considered by Argentina as illegal British occupants of Argentine territories


 * only three of them have got the A. citizenship
 * they can't live in BA with their British passport


 * a law proyect has been presented to the congress to exclude them of the nacionality law, but the proyect was never discussed
 * the universal application of Argentine nationality law to all Islanders is inhibited by the fact that Argentina does not exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Islands


 * Terragno considered their citizenship as a dangerous fiction


 * }
 * Well, there is a lot of research, but to be honest, not my original research. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My comments:
 * they don't vote, pay taxes, conscript, etc: So what? Nothing of those have anything to do with nationality or citizenship, the fact that it happens is because they live outside Arg. jurisdiction. Half my family, all argentine, never payed taxes, vote or where conscript since they moved to spain. Citizens overseas have no particular obligations, even to vote, which is mandatory for us, is voluntary for those overseas. And if they had obligations, it doesn't mean loosing citizenship or nationality. We have no information of anything linking those concepts.
 * they can't live in BA with their British passport: False. AFAIK any foreigner can live on the territory. Argentine has a tradition of weak -or directly absent- immigration restrictions. But anyway the two references: The first only says it was "complicated" to live with UK passport, the second is more detailed with a "moving around only with a British passport exposed him to “hostility and bureaucratic difficulties”". Wording "they can't live in BA" when in reality is just historical hostility as it could be a soccer match is too much fantasy.
 * a law proyect has been presented to the congress to exclude them of the nacionality law: I think it could be mentioned, but to me with the sources provided is much too weight. It's not because it was dismissed and expired, but no importance has been proved. A bill, even if rejected is worth mention if its notable, I'm sure a couple of unsuccessful bills have its own article. But if there is no mention of it on the media then I don't see its relevancy to this article. All we have is the very archive, primary source.
 * Terragno considered their citizenship as a dangerous fiction: Now with name it looks better. I'm willing to accept it in behalf of a consensus but we'd need another (opposite) opinion to weight it and maintain a NPOV.  pmt7ar (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we reached the point where we can do the next step. Your doubts:
 * they don't vote, pay taxes, conscript, etc. It is a fact. If you don't consider it as a fact I can find the references, but you will bear the shame. Do you want it?.
 * Your rationale, AFAIK, doesn't work in en:WP. There are two reliable sources tha states the fact.
 * we'd need another (opposite) opinion. Feel free to cooperate with en:WP.
 * So, if the other editors don't oppose we can begin with the wording of the replacement. Do you want to do the first attempt?. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 14:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) This has nothing to do with shame. If you have references, please do contribute them. The more information the better.
 * (2) States the fact? I've just pointed you that those two sources do NOT state that fact.  pmt7ar (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

After some digging I did find a statement of the Argentine Government position contained in  as stated by Dago Holmberg, quoted in Destefani, "populated with people who are part of the usurping power, then an illegitimate position will prevail under the responsibility of the UN" quote is from p.108. So apparently the Argentine Government considers the population as illegitimate. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright! Now we are talking. Could you provide a few lines for context? That is a Google Books snippet, and you have taught me that snippets are dangerous as they can give the wrong idea by taking phrases out of context.
 * Also: who is/was Dago Holmberg?
 * Regards. --Langus (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Keysanger: "the universal application of Argentine nationality law to all Islanders is inhibited by the fact that Argentina does not exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Islands". Can you point me to the exact page on the document? I couldn't find it. Thank you. -- Langus (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Page 232:
 * ''I do not say so. It is mentioned in the Constitution of Tierra del Fuego, whose territory comprises: “Section 169.- This Constitution recognizes the municipality as a socio-political, natural and essential community with a life of its own, sustained by adequate socio-cultural and socioeconomic development, in which families –linked by their roots and proximity- coincide in the search of common welfare. It guarantees the municipal system based on the political, administrative, economic and financial autonomy of communities”. And Section 170 provides that: “Those communities which have the characteristics mentioned in the preceding section with a minimum stable population of two thousand inhabitants shall be recognized as municipalities by the Province”. Malvinas Islands barely meet the requirement.
 * ''Consequently, the province of Tierra del Fuego would be, among other peculiarities, the only Argentine province with a municipality occupied by a foreign power. --Keysanger (what?) 01:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)