This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Human rights C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations: United Nations / Law C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations. This article is supported by WikiProject International law. Politics C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

The passive voice of so many critical phrases is the first clue that this article has serious POV problems. Another clue is that "the principle" of self determination is distinct from the phrase "self determination" or its articulaton as such but all those are conflated. The history of the principle of self determination is objectively as old as human social organization itself. Finally, Woodrow Wilson's "southern heritage" being addressed at such length -- amounts to little more than an ad hominem attack on the concept and principle of self determination. The fact that all of these violations of clarity and accuracy point to a devaluation of self determination makes a strong case that the article needs a complete rewite. --Jim Bowery 18:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC

This is true, but, when the new page is created, or reconstructed, please make a general definition section at the very begining to build upon durring the rest of the sectons, one i have found to be relable is the one from dicitionary.com.

The incorporation of these islands in the article about the self-determination seems to me to be incorrect. First: the United Nations already have been sent on the topic clarifying in that it is necessary to to proceed to a process of decolonization of the same ones. Second: there are no doubts that the population of the same ones is well-established. Third: The mention to the comment of the Prime minister David Cameron, this one clearly out of place, not only is insulting for the intelligence of the readers of the article, since clearly it is a discredit argument, almost a joke of evil taste would say, since not only he ignores the history of his own country but he invents the history of other one. It is enough to see the articles about both countries and to consult his history and they will understand my point of view. Fourth: From the point of view of the article, any group of citizens implanted by different reasons in another territory (political, economic, etc), it would ha right to claim the self-determination, for example pakistani citizens in England, moroccans in Spain, up to th:e German citizens in checoslovaquia, polonia, during the third reich, explain clearly my point? --Hernan1483 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly wrong, and wikipedia is not censored to satisfy nationalist arguments of whatever persuasion. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He forgives, but I do not believe that you have understood me or is clearly well-read my comment. Precisely I refer to it, the article clearly presents nationalistic arguments, but the same one should not be present inside the self-determination, considering the Resolution 2065 of the year 1965: "The General Assembly, Having examined the question of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), Having in it counts the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee entrusted to examine the situation with regard to the application of the Declaration on the concession of the independence to the countries and colonial peoples relating to the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and especially the conclusions and recommendations approved by the same one relative to the above mentioned Territory, Thinking that his resolution 1514 (XV), of December 14, 1960, inspired by the longed intention of putting end to the colonialism everywhere and in all his forms, in one of which there is fitted the case of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), 1. It invites the Governments of the Argentina and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue without delay the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee entrusted to examine the situation with regard to the application of the Declaration on the concession of the independence to the countries and colonial peoples in order to find a pacific solution to the problem, having due in it counts the dispositions and the aims of the Letter of the Close Nations and of the resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly, as well as the interests of the population of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands); 2.He asks both Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly, in the twenty-first period of meetings, on the result of the negotiations. 1398a. Plenary session, on December 16, 1965."

Clearly the United Nations consider the situation of this archipelago as colonial. Then, to incorporate it into the article of self-determination, it is basically a political decision. For example, in the article Falklands Islands sovereignty disputes, the resolution of United Nations is mentioned only in 2 lines: "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."

He forgives, you do not think that the above mentioned omission answers to a nationalistic argument?--Hernan1483 (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more than a couples sentences is WP:Undue. People should largely be referred to Falkland_Islands#Sovereignty_dispute. CarolMooreDC 03:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[4] I'll repeat what I said at WP:NPOVN. The article is about self-determination, the obsessive demand that we include the Argentine POV that an event in 1833 is viewed as an invasion is completely misplaced. The article should be a brief precis about the role of self-determination in relation to the Falkland Islands Dispute. That particular comment is completely and utterly irrelevant. Langus has reverted to a poorly written text that repeats the phrase "Argentine POV" no less than THREE times, TWICE in one paragaph. I'd edited the article to reframe the debate, describing the differing POV from a neutral perspective, based on academic sources. Instead we have a reversion to version of text spitting out the political POV of the Argentine Government repeatedly. We don't achieve NPOV by stating the POV of either the Argentine or British Governments, we achieve it by describing the debate from a neutral perspective. The WP:BATTLE mentality that is so obsessive about inserting the Argentine POV into each and every article has to stop and I'm getting mightily fed up with all of my edits being reverted by Langus and him following me from article to article as that is clearly hounding, it stops now or I'm going to take this to WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7 also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Do we have to report a false claim as true from a certain POV for the background. Gaba p is once again trying to claim that an Argentine claim that is demonstrably false should be treated as equal to verifiable historical fact as it is "true" from the Argentine POV. Again no, that isn't NPOV, we present the facts from a neutral perspective. His edit ignores that the historical record (both Argentine and British) contradicts this information. Its an old argument he lost a long time ago, I would ask another editor to revert him as I don't wish to risk a block correcting an obviously false claim - btw he already broke 3RR. I won't be reverting again but rather obviously I would risk a block reporting him for edit warring. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? I'm not using the talk page just as much as you are my friend. It's so amazingly funny how you assert that the source I'm referencing is a "false claim from a certain POV" but you didn't have a problem with that same source being used three lines belowby Moxy (go check) Wee, your continued claims that that British claim is a "verifiable historical fact" and the Argentinian claim is, well, a "claim" is nothing but an indicator of your clear bias (stand by for Wee's accusation of Projection bias) There is nothing neutral about you deciding which sources constitute facts and which ones merely a POV claim. Funny how you also accuse me of breaking the 3RR (which actually is a demonstrable lie) while it's you who reverted and edit-warred me in the first place and did so at least 3 times today. I agree with the neutrality template though. I think it would be better if details were left to the relevant section (Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute) rather than introducing this issue also here.

One more time Wee: just because you agree with those sources does not automatically make them facts, ok? Gaba p (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do not paste comments as if they were my contributions, that is clearly attempting to create a false impression.

2. As you well know its WP:BRD, the onus is on YOU once reverted to take this to the talk page. You didn't, I did. You are edit warring to force your material into the article.

3. You've raised this ad nauseum, couldn't get a consensus and you're back trying to force it into the article again. This is the very definition of tendentious editing.

4. The only demonstrable lie is Argentina's false claim for political reasons of pursuing a modern sovereignty claim . This is not my personal opinion, I haven't decided what the sources say, its what the historical record shows. Allowing a false claim to be presented without commenting that it differs from what the historical record shows, demoting the historical record to be a British claim is introducing bias to favour a false claim.

5. It is a complete and utter falsehood to present this as a British claim, given that the historical record in Argentina and Britain is in agreement.

6. You are presenting a political claim as historical fact, that is demonstrably counter to our policy of presenting the facts from a NPOV.

7. The only person selecting sources they happen to agree with is yourself. Your edit is based on one source you happen to agree with and you're using it to make the article biased. Rather than reflecting the range of opinion in the literature. Just because you agree with that source doesn't make it a fact, nor does adding a source to a biased comment make it bullet proof as far as wikipedia is concerned. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1- I pasted your comment which you addressed at me and then you removed (you do know people can go into the History section and check this for themselves, right?)

You have no right to paste my comment here and yes people can do that. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you have the right to edit your comments into mine, right? I wasn't aware of this "Wee can do it but you can't" new WP policy...

2- You use this guideline as an excuse to maintain (your) the status quo every time. I've tried talking things to the talk page before editing (anybody can check the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute history where I'm the one raising issues before changing anything) but stopped after realizing that you never use the talk page before editing, only once you are forced to by someone who refuses to agree with your ludicrous statements (like what's happening right now)

Accusations of bad faith don't help you. Multiple editors reverted you, because your edit was contrary to NPOV as it is now. Again the record is here, I initiated the talk page discussion twice, the onus was on you to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like what is happening now in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, one of your dear friends spared you from reverting again by undoing my edits. He didn't even bother to give a reason by the way, although I would've accepted "because Wee says so" which is pretty much why he reverted.

3- No, I raised it once before in another article and you successfully managed to maintain the status quo in that one. That doesn't make you right, it's just a way to prove how you incur in WP:OWN time after time.

There is a link posted above to that dicussion, it had nothing to do with maintaining the status quo. You argued endlessly but failed to convince multiple editors, your repeated resort to accusation of bad faith don't help you one iota. Nor does the 3rd party opinion at WP:NPOVN which is against your edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions at WP:NPOV were clearly supporting the position that you don't get to decide which sources present facts, rather you present sources period. You can keep saying those editors agreed with you but you can't change the written record Wee.

4- You don't get to decide what are lies and what are facts, no matter how much you might dislike Argentina and it's position on the matter.

No I don't, the sources do. What you're trying to do is force the article in a biased direction. And I don't dislike any particular nationality.

Except the source you want to remove states that it is a fact that the population was expelled and does so by quoting contemporary evidence. You not liking this fact is just another proof of where you stand on this issue (hint: you're nowhere near neutral my friend)

5- I added a source that stated evidence for a given claim, yet apparently you think you are in the position to decide that your sources (pro-British of course) are the ones presenting the facts.

No you didn't you cherry picked a source to support your edit and claiming Laurio H. Destefani is "Pro-British" is ridiculous. Claiming a biased source like Laver, presenting his opinion as fact, is not presenting the facts.

No I didn't cherry pick anything, that source was added by Moxy I just used it again. But you didn't contest Moxy's use of it, right?

6- No, I'm adding a source which happens to be a source you did not contest when another editor used it first.

The material is already sourced, its the biased edit that is the problem not the source. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material is sourced with only the sources you want to show. My edit intends to reflect this conflict with sources. Your edit intends to vanish one source as a lie and leave only those sources you agree with as facts.

7- Funny how you say this when I'm the one trying to include a source and you are the one edit-warring to remove it.

See WP:DICK as in don't be one, trying to provoke other editors is deeply childish. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting me gets you nowhere Wee. One more time, see WP:OWN and read it.

Again Wee: you don't get to decide which things are facts and which are lies. That's what sources are for, we reference them from a NPOV and nothing more. Your constant attempts at presenting the sources you agree with (pro-British sources) as the ones presenting facts and dismissing those stating anything else is a clear indicative of your position on the matter. I just don't know how else to say this so that you will understand it: it's not up to you to decide what is a fact and what is not. It cannot be that hard to comprehend. Gaba p (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what it seems impossible for you to understand, is that NPOV requires us to present ALL of the relevant facts in the literature, presented from a neutral perspective. You wish to present a demonstrably untrue statement as fact, a statement made for political rather than historic reasons. You're trying to demote historical facts to be a British claim, when as I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, the academic historical sources are in agreement. Your edit is a deliberate falsehood, the facts are the same on both sides. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV requires us to present ALL of the relevant facts in the literature, presented from a neutral perspective, how can you say this and at the same time be fighting to keep a reference out?? The reference is indisputable, that's agreed, so you must have other reasons to want to remove it. What would those reasons be Wee?

demonstrably untrue statement, you keep saying this. How is it demonstrable untrue? Do you have a time machine we can use to travel back in time and check for ourselves? What we do is rely on sources. What you don't seem to grasp is that simply because you agree with some sources that does not make other sources conflicting with those untrue. We present the facts that we obtain from the sources, if the facts conflict we inform this. We do not get to decide which set of sources state demonstrable facts and which ones demonstrable lies. We present all sources, ok? Now, again, what is your motive to attempt to remove a source other than you not agreeing with what it says? I'm guessing you have none, otherwise you'd have expressed it already. So please stop trying to maintain your version of the (any) article just because you feel entitled to (see WP:OWN) The source is perfectly valid and conflicting facts must be presented as such. Gaba p (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ignore further personal attacks. Dealing with the only matter relevant to wikipedia. It is demonstrably untrue because the British, American and Argentine sources, indeed sources from all nationalities not that nationality is relevant, from the period show that Vernet's settlement was not expelled see Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7 for an extensive demonstration of this supported by sources of all nationalities. In addition, referring to Laver p.20, I see nothing that supports your claim that he asserts as fact that the British expelled the settlement. Even were that the case, we don't have to report an untrue claim in one source as fact see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Do we have to report a false claim as true from a certain POV. Again to repeat, we achieve a NPOV by presenting facts from a neutral perspective not based on any particularly nationality.

The historical record is in agreement here, the settlement was not expelled; the only people to leave was the mutinous garrison from a penal colony that existed less than 3 months. Further again your assertion it is a British claim is untrue as again sources from all nationalities reflect the same material. That edit is completelty unsustainable from the perspective of verifiability never mind WP:NPOV and you know it. I note you simply claim it is a British POV and repeatedly ignore the fact that the sources are in agreement here. Your edit isn't sourced.

Now your edit has been challenged, you can't satisfy WP:V never mind WP:NPOV it should be self-reverted immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for Wikipedia:Requests for comment?Moxy (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely any edit needs to be WP:V? This one isn't and at this point its been edit warred into the article. Happy for an RFC, especially given the comments the last time this went to WP:NPOVN, but the article needs to be at the last stable consensus surely? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - stable version till talk is over. As for the contested statements - is the info found in multiple sources - or just in one place?Moxy (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a confusion. The historical record is in agreement ie there is no controversy there. Like I said, I'm happy for this to go to an RFC, as I can demonstrate it conclusively. I don't actually refer to any nationality but Gaba p's edit is totally misleading for the simple reason he is presenting this as a solely British claim. It isn't. For information, I quote Destefani, 127,000 copies of this book were printed in 1982 and distributed free to schools and universities throughout the world. It was intended to give the historical basis for Argentina's claim, whilst its bias is obvious to any reader, it does show this claim to be FALSE. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently only the historical record you agree with is in agreement and the historical record presented by me is not verifiable. Leaving aside the fact that you are now trying to wikilawyer a source out (and that you attempted to WP:TAGTEAM by leaving a message to one of your editor friends) I'll just copy/paste comments from the NPOV board:

"contemporary historical record" from 1833 needs to be interpreted, even if it is argentine records. So when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case. Presumably current pro-Argentinian experts makes no such claim? The fact that we are reporting is "...Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833". Which is an uncontested, and easily sourced, fact, ie. nobody is claiming that Argentina is not claiming this. NPOV requires us to report all significant views, and the Argentine view is certainly germane to this discussion, so we can not leave it out. Taemyr (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this... first we (Wikipedia editors) should not be interpreting "contemporary historical records from 1833"... that is known as Original research... what we should do is report on the interpretation of published historians. As for POV... we don't report on the claims from an Argentinian POV - we report on both the Argentinian and British claims from a Neutral POV. To put this another way: We (Wikipedia editors) must be neutral when reporting on the non-neutral claims of our sources. The best way to do this is through attribution. Tell the reader exactly who says what. For example... we might say: "Argentinian historian Juan Doe Y Smith contends that the Islands contained an Argentinian population that was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833 . British historian Jane Jones disagrees and contends that the islands were unoccupied at the time ." (note... ... obviously, I am making this up here... you would have to adjust the exact wording to match what the sources actually do say). Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(emphasis added)

Now I'm not sure how Wee can interpret these comments as favorable to his position (I'm sure he doesn't, he just throws lies around hoping nobody will actually take the time and effort to go check) Both comments clearly say that it is not our place to interpret neither sources nor contemporary documents. We present all sources and facts and do not decide which ones are true facts and which ones are not, that is called original research and it's what Wee is doing here.

It is demonstrably untrue because the British, American and Argentine sources ... from the period show that Vernet's settlement was not expelled <-- Prime example of Wee's OR. You are coming to that conclusion after examining the sources you choose to assign the status of true. If those sources say population was not expelled, then we present that fact. But we don't hide other sources which present different facts just because you don't like them. That's dishonest. If you say this fact is not a British claim then we can agree that the opposite fact (stated in the source I proposed) is also not an Argentinian claim. You can't have it both ways, they are bot either contradicting facts or they are both claims. Your British bias in the Falklands dispute is not a compelling factor to give more weight to one source over another.

referring to Laver p.20, why would you refer to Laver when I referencing Oliveri López?

I'm happy for this to go to an RFC, as I can demonstrate it conclusively, I've told you already you should write a book with all this conclusions and facts and then reference that book. Until then it constitutes WP:OR and it is not acceptable.

I quote Destefani ... it does show this claim to be FALSE, could you please copy/paste where in the book it states that the population was not expelled from the island? I've asked you for this before but you never did.

I agree with RFC. Gaba p (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who provided relevant quotes by Destéfani and others, in Origins of Falkland Islanders#Early settlers. No need to repeat that time and again. Apcbg (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apcbg that article has some issues, thanks for bringing it to my attention. This particular sentence is problematic: On 5 January 1833, at the moment when the remaining Argentine military abandoned the islands,[7] 27 of the original Vernet settlers and 2 temporary residents remained in Port Louis.[8]. According to sources like the one I presented here, the population didn't abandon the islands, they were actually expelled. The choice of words in that article is quite biased towards the British position and should be fixed. Also reference [8] is a dead link.

The source [21] used here as a supposed source for the 27 members of Vernet's colony [that] were still in residence in the islands in July 1833 actually says absolutely nothing about that (but you and Wee reverted my edit that fixed this nonetheless) and even more it states: ..on 2 January 1833 they [the British] arrived at Port Louis ... Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands. So here's another source for the expulsion.

I'm not sure what's your point, but Destéfani is used in that article to reference the statement: in 1838 the then single settlement of Port Louis had a population of 40-45 residents including some gauchos and women from among Luis Vernet’s settlers. What does this have to do with the 1833 incident? Does Destéfani state anywhere that in 1833 the population was not actually expelled? Gaba p (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh here we go again. Huge reams of argumentative text making accusations and quibbling about sources. Again I re-iterate, something that you're wilfully ignoring to misrepresent my position, I am not interpreting the historical record I am reporting what the sources say. This is NOT my opinion, I reflect what the sources say.

Yes you are interpreting the historical record. Reporting what the sources say means exactly that: reporting what the sources say. You are unilaterally deciding which sources represent facts and which do not. That is WP:OR. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were 2 resident populations in the Falkland Islands in January 1833.

1) The settlement established in 1828 by Luis Vernet, somewhat depleted after most of the population took the opportunity to leave as a result of the Lexington raid in 1831.

2) The garrison and prisoners of the penal colony that arrived in 1832. The garrison had mutinied, killing their commander and released the prisoners. This had been in the islands for less than 3 months.

The Argentine claim is that the entire population was expelled and replaced by Britons, which is then used to justify its modern sovereignty claim i.e. Argentina claims that both the garrison, prisoners and the settlement was expelled.

It is no more an Argentinian claim than the settlers not being expelled is a British claim. Again see WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You'll be doing us all a favor giving it a good read. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No again, the historical record of all nationalities corroborates the account that the population was not expelled by the British. NPOV does not require that we explicitly state the Argentine claim verbatim as if it were the truth. We report on matters from a neutral perspective, in this case the secondary sources states the Argentine claim is incorrect, this is corroborated by the historical record. You repeatedly assert this is a British claim but provide no cite to corroborate that. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. No one disputes that Onslow requested that the Argentine garrison was requested to leave and they did so. However, the settlement was not expelled, it was encouraged to remain. That this was the case is in Pinedo's report, the captain of the ARA Sarandi, corroborated by Thomas Helsby (Vernet's clerk), Onslow's orders, Onslow's report, the log of HMS Clio, the accounts of Darwin and Fitzroy, the census records in the Falkland Islands. Interpreting primary sources, secondary sources document this claim to be false.

Here you go, from the López source: "Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...". This is called a source for a fact, just like your sources for your facts. It can't be made any more clear than that. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is a cite for the Argentine claim. Your edit is that the British claim is they weren't expelled. There is no such British claim, the historical record of all nationalities is the same. You haven't provided a cite at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are deliberately misrepresenting what the sources say to provide a biased account. You're trying to obfuscate the situation by referring to the request for the garrison to leave, as the expulsion of the resident population.

Read comment above. You are cherry-picking sources (those that go better with your pro-British claim). Not me. I'm trying to keep all the sources for both claims, you on the other hand, are trying to have a source you don't like removed. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the preference in writing for a NPOV is to rely on neutral academic sources, rather than political tomes. In this case, the academic sources saying no expulsion of all nationalities are corroborated by the contemporary historical record. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I meant Lopez not Laver but I would guess you knew that. (No I did not, why should I?) Pray how does Lopez support your assertion this is a British claim rather than documented history? (It does not, it's a source for the expulsion of the settlers which makes the British fact a claim just like your sources make the Argentinian fact a claim.) And btw Lopez was an Argentine ambassador, not a historian. (Wee desperate = Wikilawyering = irrelevant = yawn) Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim that I've not supplied any reference to Destefani, I refer to my post of the 27 May 2012 in Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7. The problem is that wikipedia maintains a written record, so when you try and promulgate a falsehood the written record is readily at hand to prove you wrong. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed WP keeps a written record which allows me to bring back what you wrote for everyone to see. This is what you quoted from Destéfani at the time: "Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos.". Care to explain how is that a source for Britain not expelling the settlers? Because I cannot find the relevance. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you can't see it. How can Pinedo leave someone in charge if everyone was expelled? That statement is a historical record that supports the secondary source which states the Argentine claim is untrue. I'll repeat that, the historical record supports the secondary sources that say the settlement was NOT EXPELLED. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The settlement was not expelled, it was encouraged to remain". Yes, it was encouraged but not all of them accepted the "offer". The fact is that the settlement was partially expelled, and the armed garrison, fully expelled.

(Related question to ask yourselves: are there any descendants of the settlers that choose to stay living today on the islands?)

I would also like to ask everyone to actually check Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Do_we_have_to_report_a_false_claim_as_true_from_a_certain_POV. You will see that suggestions given there is against the way WCM likes to write about this (and as he is doing it here, once again).

@WCM: please tell me how this doesn't constitute WP:CANVASSING... --Langus (t) 01:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, listen to yourself, you acknowledge the settlement was encouraged to remain but in the next sentence claim they were expelled; you don't expel someone you ask to stay. That is a classic example of a non sequitur, what is remarkable is the Doublethink involved where you will actually make two utterly contradictory statements but cannot see it for yourself. As I stated above I'm ignoring the unfounded accusations of misconduct, please stop it. I simply point out asking someone with relevant knowledge to comment is not canvassing.

Could you also explain the rationale for this tag [5], since the claims is quite explicit that it refers to 1833 [6] see

Its not as if this isn't common knowledge in Argentina. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge

Step by step

1. You repeatedly assert this is a British claim. Please provide a cite, with supporting quote to show that this is a British claim as opposed to historical fact. If you can't you can't write that in the article as it is not verifiable.

What makes something a claim in a dispute is the two parties involved presenting conflicting evidence from different sources. The pro-British like to stress some sources as if they presented facts (pro-British of course) and dismiss other sources (pro-Argentine) as if they presented mere claims or simply lies. Same goes the other way around. That said, here's your quote:

"Britain argues its case on its long-term administration of the islands and on the principle of self-determination for the residents. It says the islands have been continuously, peacefully and effectively inhabited and administered by Britain since 1833."

(emphasis added)

This excerpt is taken from the Britain's view of the Falklands here. Gaba p (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. If (1.) is provided, then you can of course provide evidence from the contemporary historical record to corroborate the cite. This will enable us to demonstrate that the contemporary records are contradictory.

Once again: it is not our place to analyze and draw conclusions from the historical record. We present what the sources say, we do not engage in WP:OR. That said (which of course you already know), here's once again the sources for the population being expelled:

"Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...".

Taken from here. And the're also this:

"..However, upon decolonisation and under the principle of uti possidetis, sovereignty should have been transferred to Argentina, which declared independence in 1816. In 1833, Britain expelled the islands' inhabitants."

Taken from here.

And this:

"..Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands."

Taken from here.

And this:

"In 1832 Britain reasserts its claim to the Falklands (hardly as yet exercised outside Saunders Island). A year later a British force arrives to evict the Argentinians. And at last British settlement begins."

Taken from here. Gaba p (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Regarding the neutral statement this is an Argentine claim. Neutral academic source:

Hence, equivalent to (1.) above the notion this is an Argentine claim can be supported.

Agreed, that the population was expelled is an Argentinian claim just as the statement that they were not expelled is a British claim. Gaba p (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Further to (3.) above, I can already confirm that the contemporary record backs this up.

Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Onslow's orders were clear

Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.

Pinedo (An Argentine source) corroborates this:

The Complete Works of Charles Darwin online includes the diaries of both Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy. HMS Beagle visited the settlement in March 1833 and again the following year. In March 1833, Fitzroy documents his meeting with Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, who had returned to take charge of Vernet's business interests. Fitzroy also documents his efforts to persuade the settlers to continue in the islands. Both Darwin and Fitzroy document their meetings with the settlers supposedly expelled 3 months earlier.

Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement.

There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives.

WP:OR. If you can get sources for the British claim from this, we can use them. Gaba p (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. It should be noted that we are regarding the claim that the settlement was expelled in 1833 and not the garrison, so please try not to obfuscate matters again eh.

I think the sources are pretty clear on this, eh? Gaba p (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK the gauntlet is thrown, please address the above without personal attacks, if you can't I will restoring the content to the article and removing the unverifiable material. For the record I am asking you to address (1.) and (2.) only, if you wish to criticise (3.) and (4.) we can do so later. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things:

1-: "How can Pinedo leave someone in charge if everyone was expelled?", the reference says verbatim: "Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos". Where does it say that the population was not expelled?? That is a conclusion you are drawing from a quite vague statement and it's called WP:OR.

2- Let me quote several sentences from Wee at the time of the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_7:

Can you either of you produce a source with evidence backing up the claim it makes? Or do you simply wish to present an untrue statement as fact?

Gaba p, have you a reliable secondary source stating that? Answer no.

We didn't decide what is true, the sources do

We let the reader make their own mind up by providing all of the information

Bare in mind this person asking for sources and explaining how we present all the information and let the reader decide is the same person who is now edit-warring to try to keep a source out just because he doesn't like the facts it presents and the same person who intends to obtain conclusions from cherry-picked sources and present said conclusions here as if they were documented facts when in reality they are nothing but his own WP:OR. Gaba p (talk)

A few thoughts:

1. You're assuming the role of a writer. You're challenging him to step above the role of a Wikipedia editor. Again, WP:NPOVFAQ and ask to a friend or relative to interpret for you the comments at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Do_we_have_to_report_a_false_claim_as_true_from_a_certain_POV.

2. Mary Cakwell is not a strictly "neutral academic source". It is a reliable academic source tho, that favors British point of view.

Cheers. --Langus (t) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note you've both declined to respond. I also note the personal attacks, that I'm the only editor to support their edit with sources and contrary to my request you're still confusing settlement and garrison to muddy the waters. You keep referring to POV from national perspectives, wikipedia present a NPOV.

So to summarise:

1. You have no source to show this is a British claim rather the historical record. This is thus your synthesis and original research (though I note you muddy the waters by trying to accuse othes of WP:OR). This is unsustainable as an edit.

2. A source exists to show this an Argentine claim, corroborated by contemporary historical records. It conforms to WP:V and WP:RS and to WP:NPOV as it based on an academic source not a political source. See WP:NPOVN#What is a NPOV?.

To re-iterate the edit I made was based on what the sources say, I have made the point repeatedly but you ignore it to make unfounded and unsustainable accusations of misconduct. I will shortly be removing the comments edit warred into the article as they are not a sustainable edit. If you wish them to remain you have to source them appropriately. If you plan on WP:TAG to edit war them into the article I will take this to WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievable. I answered all your points with sources backing up the statements yet you choose to ignore everything I wrote. You continue to act as if this (and other) articles belonged to you and the rest of the editors had to convince you somehow so their edits will be accepted. You are not the owner of the article, there's two editors who agree with an edit yet you keep acting as if yours were the final word. YOU DON'T OWN THE ARTICLE WEE. You don't get to decide unilaterally what's a fact and what is not, you know this. I think at this point your pro-British bias is so great it won't even let you see things from a neutral POV anymore. You just can't. Seriously, you'd be doing WP a favor by excusing yourself from editing Falkland related articles for a while until you can at least make peace with your bias and accept that believing you are correct does not make it true.

Of course I'll be undoing your last rv and if you feels this needs to escalate, so be it.

Also: you have the nerve of accusing us of WP:TAG when it was you who called Apcbg to help you edit-war the article (which thankfully he did not)??? You truly have no shame. Gaba p (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, ever seen Apcbg tag teaming? I asked for input, knowing he wouldn't. In addition, you haven't answered any points just plenty of personal attacks.

Your edit is unsourced, nowhere in any source does it state that it is a British claim the settlement wasn't expelled. I've asked you to provide it and you haven't. As to the rest - see WP:ANI. Please do, if you're accusing me of misconduct and violating NPOV, I look forward to it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba p, you have conveniently 'overlooked' Destéfani's evidence that Argentines used to thrive on the Falklands decades post 1833. Apcbg (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't WP:BAIT on that one and I'm not willing to assume the role of a secondary source, which I am not (and neither are you, BTW).

May I suggest taking the section out (or revert it to before August 24th) and work on it in a sandbox? --Langus (t) 01:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apcbg I have overlooked nothing. It is not my position nor is it yours (or any other WP editor) to analyze evidence. If there are sources that based on Destefani's work state that there were Argentine citizens decades after the 1833 incident and, from this analysis, draw the conclusion that there was no expulsion at the time, then we can present them as saying that much. We do not present and analyze historical evidence because we do not engage in WP:OR. What we do is present sources, period. Gaba p (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have overlooked something, if you look at (3.) above there is a source that looks at the historical evidence and concludes there was no expulsion. A source that backs this up explicitly. I take it you will no withdraw your challenge to my edit in that respect.

Furthermore, whilst you are correct it is not our place to analyse historical evidence and present this in articles. That is indeed original research. However, there is nothing to stop us referring to historical evidence in evaluating a source as to whether to use it in an article. This is very much part of the WP:CONSENSUS building process. This is why we are not compelled to repeat a statement made in a source, if we know it to be untrue.

However, you have no source which looks at the contemporary records with the conclusion that it is a British claim there was no expulsion. Your edit is not sourced and your use of cites is in fact citation fraud - the source does not verify the edit. The British do not make such a claim, this is what the contemporary historical record states. I have given you more than ample opportunity to support your edit.

Finally, in explaining the role of self-determination in the FI dispute NPOV does require us to state what the Argentine position is and its justification. However, if we have evidence that part of that statement is based on a claim contradicted by contemporary historical evidence, stated in a source and after evaluating the claim made in that source we conclude the author is correct, then we should also make that statement as NPOV requires us to do so.

I am unwilling to revert to an edit prior to 24 August, restoring to a version of the text that an independent editor desrcibed as "POV crap". I will however attempt to fix my edit by attributing the opinion expressed to an author. Which should more that suffice. If you edit again to introduce text attributing the contemporary records falsely to be a British claim, I will be taking your WP:TE to WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba p, Destéfani is a secondary source presenting historical evidence by Commodore Augusto Lasserre. Apcbg (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current section looks much better but some things need to be corrected. To prevent an edit war, I propose we do it here. This is the current version:

This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833^[6] during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination.^[7] Historian Mary Cawkell^[8] considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain^[9][10], that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.^[11]

And this are the changes I propose:

This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled.^[12] Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination.^{[citation needed]} Historian Mary Cawkell considers that contemporary historical records indicate the population was encouraged to remain^[13], while author Marjory Harper states that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.^[11] On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British.^[7]

1. Moved 1st citation to a better position.
2. Added ^{[citation needed]} where Olivieri's book was. We need an official Argentinian government source to reference that statement.
3. I moved Mary Cawkell's source to a more correct position and eliminated The Telegraph and Destefani because they don't actually belong if we're talking about what Cawkell said.
4. contemporary records historical --> contemporary historical records
5. Corrected statement attributed to Cawkell when the source points to Harper.
6. Added statement by Olivieri attributed to him.

Edit my comment to correct anything that you think should be changed. Gaba p (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez makes no such analysis or statement, he simply makes a bald statement that the British expelled the population. Lopez is not a historian, he is a political appointee, stating the Argentine Government position. Given the weight of evidence backing Cawkell's statement, to add in that statement knowing there is nothing to support it would be seriously misleading. If you can produce contemporary records to back Lopez thats different. And again don't confuse garrison and settlement.

There is no need to refer to Harper, as the material is already cited. In addition, the {{cn}} wouldn't have been needed if you hadn't removed the official Argentinian government source to replace it with Lopez.

The whole purpose of editing that section was to reduce it in size, commensurate with the relation to the subject matter. It needs to be pruned to whats relevant. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lopez makes no such analysis or statement, he simply makes a bald statement that the British expelled the population". Lopez does make an analysis based on British sources, the expelled population is taken from a memorandum, he's not making that claim out of thin air. You can't dismiss this source unless you have a valid reason to do so. Do you?
• "Lopez is not a historian", you know this is irrelevant.
• "stating the Argentine Government position", no he is not. He investigated British sources, analyzed them and wrote a book with the conclusions he reached. He is no more stating the Argentinian position than Cawkell is stating the British position.
• "Given the weight of evidence backing Cawkell's statement, to add in that statement knowing there is nothing to support it would be seriously misleading", this is again WP:OR. We do not report on the available evidence, we report on the sources that analyzed such evidence. Cawkell did and so did Lopez so we present both unless you are calling Lopez book a fringe theory
• "If you can produce contemporary records to back Lopez thats different", I need to do no such thing because it is not our position to investigate evidence and come up with conclusions. I can't believe you don't see the difference between reporting what a source says and reporting personal conclusions based on evidence. We do not analyze evidence.
• "don't confuse garrison and settlement.", I don't see where you think I'm making this confusion. Lopez book says: "Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...". It can't be made any more clearer.
• "There is no need to refer to Harper, as the material is already cited.", the current version of the section says: "Historian Mary Cawkell[74] considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain[75][76], that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.[77]" The sentence after reference [76] is grammatically being attributed to Cawkell when it corresponds to Harper. What is not clear about this?
• the {{cn}} wouldn't have been needed if you hadn't removed the official Argentinian government source to replace it with Lopez. I don't understand what you mean. If there's an official source by the Argentinian government stating that then lets add it. Lopez is not an official source any more than Cawkell is to the UK.

The current state of the section needs to be improved and I would like to have an agreement before doing so, but if you refuse to answer the points I'm raising as I answered yours, then I'll be moving along with the edit without your consent as I will understand you simply intend to be the WP:WINNER no matter what. Gaba p (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba, Wee, I would like to state my disagreement with your disregard of Destéfani who is a renowned Argentine military historian and his primary source Augusto Lasserre spent quite some time on the Islands. Apcbg (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder at what point you will realise that being confrontational will get you nowhere. See WP:NPOVN#What is a NPOV? and the comment made by TFD, Lopez's agenda is very much relevant to evaluating whether we use a claim made in a source; as is whether his claim is corrobarated by other sources. The source does not base his conclusion on British sources as you claim. To claim it does is citation fraud. All you've done is A. state he makes a claim and B. state he bases his document on British sources, therefore A + B = C he makes his conclusion based on British sources. Classic WP:SYN. Take it to WP:NPOVN if as usual you won't take my word for it.

Apcbg I didn't disregard Destéfani, though I do consider it a biased source given the circumstances of its publication. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wee, the name of Lopez book is Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Where, could you please tell me, am I making a WP:SYN (or citation fraud?? ô_O) by stating that he makes his conclusion based on British sources? You seem to be wikilawyering to try to keep a source out and it is not acceptable.

You haven't answered my points Wee. Every time you raise concerns about some edit I take the time to answer all your questions as thoroughly as I can and I would appreciate the same treatment from you. It's apparent that you won't give an inch even on obvious corrections as 1, 4 and 5. Seriously, you'd rather have a section contain gibberish like contemporary records historical than agreeing with me on any edit? I'll correct the section now because it needs to be done. Gaba p (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied, it is synthesis to make that conclusion, the suggestion is to take this to NPOVN and get a 3rd opinion. I will revert any change you make as you clearly don't have consensus and are forcing material into this article that is your WP:OR and WP:SYN. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harper states nothing about the garrison leaving, its purely about the establishment of the settlement. Your edit is now vandalism attributing the wrong statement to the wrong source. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wee, I cannot see how the circumstances of Destéfani's book could affect the significance of his primary source, Augusto Lasserre's report Descripción de un viaje a las Malvinas published in El Río de la Plata Newspaper, Buenos Aires, 19–21 November 1869.

As for that Lopez book, I take it that either his assertion could be sourced in the original source he cites, or otherwise Lopez is a primary source and hence unsuitable for the purpose. Apcbg (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez refers to Akehurst, who is referring to Goebel, p.456 and Goebel refers to the expulsion of the garrison - I checked. All of Gaba p's edits are deliberately confusing the garrison with the settlement. As to Destéfani, I don't dispute his primary source, I simply use the book with caution due to the manner in which it was published. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goebel could be a secondary source if his assertion is based on a primary source, but he cannot be a reliable primary source himself as he wrote nearly one century after 1833. If he has no reliable primary sources, then the reference to him by Akehurst, Lopez etc. hardly makes them reliable secondary sources. Apcbg (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wee, I remind you that you've been advised before by an admin to be careful with your wild accusations of vandalism. --Langus (t) 15:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP:HOUND - stop now. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you checked uh? Tell me Wee, you checking sources and deciding that what is verbatim expressed in one of those is not true, how is that not WP:OR and WP:SYN? You can't WP:WIN this by continuing to edit-war me, you need actual valid reasons. The Lopez book is just as valid as a source as Cawkell's book is. It is not an official Argentinian statement (this is more than obvious) and it verbatim refers to settlers being expelled from their settlement, there is no confusion whatsoever when referencing that source. This will be reflected in the article because you not liking what it implies is not a valid reason not to. Trying to wikilawyer the source out (as you and Apcbg are trying to do) will not work either.

You reverted to a version that contains a clear grammatical error and not even bothered to fixed it. I guess it shows how interested you are in the quality of the article versus the message you can have it display. I see Harper is just a source for the 1841 colonization attempts but the way it is presented is beyond confusing. The source from The Telegraph and Destefani do not belong there at all. As for your accusations: meh.Gaba p (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Folks, this is getting out of hand. The current dispute is now very long-winded, turning into an edit war and starting to descend into ad hominem remarks. With any luck a few other page watchers may be tempted out to provide some perspective during this short respite. Ben MacDui 15:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]