Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 63#Talk:Medical uses of silver

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{drn filing editor|Gaba p|13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Parties are discussing the same issues in two forums: this DRN case and the article talk page, despite being asked to limit it to one forum. Resolution unlikely to be achieved here in DRN. Recommend an RfC. --Noleander (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC) }}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty_dispute}}

Users involved

• {{User|Gaba p}}
• {{User| Wee Curry Monster}}
• {{User| Kahastok}}
• {{User|Langus-TxT}}

Dispute overview

The International position section of the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article is being drafted after the old one was removed by editors Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok. These two editors argue that China's position should not be included in the section (specifically the sentence: China has also stated its support for Argentina's sovereignty claim) as per WP:WEIGHT (I'll let them explain their reasons) and at the same time argue that the British Commonwealth should be included (The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory)

China's position can be easily sourced ([http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05602.pdf UK Parliament's article], [http://www.mfa.gov.cn/esp/wjdt/gongbao/t717906.htm China's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (point 5, in Spanish)], [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768 BBC UK], [http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/26/china-and-argentina-ratify-crossed-support-for-taiwan-and-falklands-claims Mercopress], [http://www.infobae.com/notas/623735-China-reitero-su-apoyo-al-reclamo-argentino-por-las-Malvinas.html Infobae], [http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1435533-china-apoyo-el-reclamo-argentino-por-la-soberania-de-las-islas-malvinas La Nación], [http://www.clarin.com/politica/Apoyo-chino-Malvinas-inversiones-trenes_0_551944924.html Clarin] and many many more smaller sources) while they have yet not presented an article to source Commonwealth mention.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The discussion around this section has been going on for weeks now. This is only one point where agreement has not been reached, although a relevant one given its implications on what standards we should use when adding content to WP. I note that I'd have no problem backing the Commonwealth mention provided we can source it.

How do you think we can help?

Commenting on whether the reasons/sources provided are enough to either include both mentions in the section (China/Commonwealth), include only one or none.

I believe they are using WP:WEIGHT in a "double-standard" way that permits them to dismiss a thoroughly sourced position (China) and at the same time back the inclusion of another position, as of yet un-sourced (Commonwealth).

After discussion with Cabe4603, I have agreed to refactor my comments to be more focused.

As I see it, I believe this request should be rejected, for the very simple reason there is no dispute as described above. To be explicit:

1. I have never refused to allow mention of China.
2. I have not made any statement either for or against the inclusion of China.
3. You'll not find a single occasion in the current talk page discussion where I comment on the inclusion or otherwise of China.

The accusations of "double standards" are a personal attack against two editors, whilst DRN is not about editor behaviour, it is also not a platform to allow personal attacks. I am disappointed no one commented on that before accepting the case. My initial response was prompted by more than a little irritation that those comments were allowed to stand without question. It sets the wrong tone for any DR attempt to be successful.

The discussion in the talk page has been progressing toward a consensus text, noting this and other comments at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute no one sees this as necessary at this time. As regards mention of China and my alleged refusal to include it. This is a strawman of Gaba p's own invention see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=537108657], where he presumes I will object and has proceeded accordingly. Please note this was late on Thursday eve last week, if you check my contribution history I have not edited much over the weekend and anyway it would difficult to comment as the prodigious output of contradictory statements and antagonistic approach to every editor makes it difficult to follow never mind comment on any argument he makes.

His presumption is incorrect.

I have no objection to the mention of China, provided this is done in a manner to inform our readers as to why. In a quid pro quo, Argentina expresses support for China's sovereignty claim over Taiwan, in return for China supporting Argentina's sovereignty claim (see [http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/26/china-and-argentina-ratify-crossed-support-for-taiwan-and-falklands-claims]). I would suggest the request is rejected. I'm sorry but I believe this to be a waste of time for everyone involved. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Plan to redo following discussion and redirection}}

I see this as a nomination as decidedly premature and I have to note a further example of the nominator abusing the DR to prevent progress from moving forward.

He currently claims I have not provided a source as a basis for estimating weight - diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFalkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=537613464&oldid=537613356],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=537697917],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=537699277]. I could provide further diffs going back weeks.

I have repeatedly provided a basis for establishing weight most recently last night [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=537621395] and first on 20 January 2013 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=537621395]. Referring to the archive there are many further examples, where I patiently respond to his demands for a source but he simply denies it has ever been made.

Gaba frequently posts huge tracts of text, then demands we respond to each and every point, he then claims we haven't addressed his points, you respond addressing each and every one and he will then post the same tracts of text again claiming there has been no response. The discussion has not moved forward as a result.

If you review the text he proposes, it is clearly non-neutral as he presents the case that only Argentina enjoys International Support, he has removed any mention of support for the UK and the language he uses is far from neutral, reflecting verbatim claims made by the Argentine Government (though I do note after opening here he has toned it down a bit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=next&oldid=537710298]). I think it is illuminating to refer to his comment of 23 January [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFalkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=534523647&oldid=534519243], he alleges the current state of secondary sources in existence 100% back the fact that a bigger pro-Argentina position is being voiced, which reflects the Argentine Government claim that [http://en.mercopress.com/2013/02/05/falklands-will-be-under-argentine-control-within-20-years-timerman-tells-uk-media not one single country in the world supports the UK governing the Falklands]. I'm sorry but this seems clearly to be the case of an editor with strong nationalist views that is unable to co-operate with other editors in presenting the neutral view wikipedia demands.

I could hazard a guess as to why this case has been started but I believe this to be wasting everyone's time. I have no problem bringing it here, if there is a genuine desire to move forward. I'm sorry but I simply can't see it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Noting the comment added below, I believe I was incorrect in my assumption that the purpose in raising this at DRN is that Gaba p is simply trying to portray other editors as unreasonable rather than a genuine attempt at dispute resolution and a further example of his conduct turning every discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I believe he is wasting your and my time, the purpose is not genuine dispute resolution.

:Discussion has stymied as a result of filbustering by Gaba p eg demanding detailed answers [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFalkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=531999158&oldid=531998744], disputes response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFalkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=532077716&oldid=532040248] then claims no response obtained [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFalkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=532246502&oldid=532221935], WP:PA eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASelf-determination&diff=532892542&oldid=532887283],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASelf-determination&diff=532892542&oldid=532887283],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-determination&diff=next&oldid=530995579], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-determination&diff=next&oldid=530996587]. I could go on.

:This is not a simple content dispute, that could easily be resolved by the editors discussing the matter in talk, rather one disruptive editor holding a series of articles hostage as noted by this admin at WP:ANI see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=533407511]. On the talk page there is an ongoing discussion close to agreement, the only voice of dissent is Gaba p. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

::Okay, but if what you say is true, the next step (after filibustering and tendentious editing on the Talk page) is either WP:RFC or WP:DRN. The whole point of DRN is to provide a neutral forum when Talk page discussion reach an impasse. So here we are at DRN. I suggest that we let the DRN process take its course. Within DRN, obviously, we cannot take the word of one party to the DRN case that the other party's case is baseless, and just drop the DRN case based on that allegation. If GabaP arguments have no merits, that will become apparent soon. If the DRN case does not achieve a good resolution, the WP:RFC process can be used afterwards. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:::OK fair enough, I did not refuse to participate. However, there has already been a case here that I started, which resulted in Gaba p and another editor refusing to co-operate, going ahead to edit war and then raising two frivolous complaints at WP:ANI. I note the comments at User talk:Bwilkins and simply observe the case seems to be more about Gaba p making a mountain out of a molehill, with the aim of trying to build a case for an RFC/U against me. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

::::I notice that many of your comments are focusing on alleged problems with GabaP's behavior. At DRN, we are not allowed to mention behvior issues: the idea is to focus 100% on content. So, from this point forward, you should probably refrain from talking about his alleged "ANI"s and "frivolous complaints" and "posts huge tracts of text" and so on; instead just talk about Reliable Sources for China's view of the Falklands. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::Its difficult to not comment about problems with Gaba p's behaviour, seeing as the very premise of the DRN raised here is an example of it. I have never refused to allow any mention of China. I have not made any such statement regarding China. You'll not find a single occasion in the current talk page discussion where I comment on China. The comment here was phrased to imply I was being unreasonable, when I have not even participated in any such discussion.

:::::My own opinion, if Gaba p feels that Chinese support for Argentina is so vital to mention, then go right ahead. Argentina has obtained the support of a Communist dictatorship as a quid pro quo for supporting that state against the democratic regime in Taiwan, denying the people of Taiwan have a right to determine their own future. We should be providing the full picture to our readers.

:::::I have to admit that I am hugely disappointed that you Noleander commented in the way you did. As a mediator in any discussion, it is vital not to take sides and I have to note you did so most emphatically. I would suggest you think about your comments more carefully. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}} For information, not all participants have been listed User:Hohum, User:Scjessey, User:Apcbg, User:Martin Hogbin, User:Irondome, User:Langus-TxT, User:Bevo74 et al have all been active in the talk page discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:I'll post a notice on the article Talk page, notifying them of this DRN case. The DRN case "parties" don't necessarily need to include everyone that has joined into the discussion ... just the primary proponents. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

::Looks like you already beat me to it. I'm sure if any of those editors are interested, they will see the note and join this DRN conversation. Feel free to also post notes on their user talk pages. --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Just a quick comment: I notified everybody over at the talk page that I'd opened this report 5 hours ago[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=537706244]. Wee must have missed it in his rush to comment on how I'm a filibuster and a disruptive editor and such (instead of actually comment on the content dispute at hand). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

::::A stray comment in an area for commenting on another editors text proposal is very easily missed and is not clearly notifying other editors. I missed it because it was so obascure and I'm not the only editor to have missed it. Please try not to restrict your posts to your own area. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

So far as I can tell, any section on third parties is undue weight. But I can accept a short section as a compromise. There are two questions here: the general and the specific. The DRN was opened on the specific, so I will base this statement on the specific.

I, unlike Curry Monster, have opposed a mention of China. There is no evidence that China's position is significant in terms of support for Argentina or that it is significant to the dispute. There is no reason to assume that it is. At no stage in history has China taken any action that materially affected any aspect of Falklands history - other than two votes on Security Council resolutions during the 1982 war (that were not cast in Argentina's favour). The evidence is that China's only reason for signing statements that support Argentina is in return for Argentine statements about Taiwan. Ultimately, we are not looking at a country that's significantly engaged in the dispute, and it's not as though support for Argentina in general is not already covered in detail by the proposals.

But while support for Argentina is covered in detail by all proposals, Gaba's proposal does not mention any support for Britain at all.

Whereas Argentina is very aggressive in soliciting statements - President Fernández stormed out of a major summit over this last April - Britain is not. So it's generally easier to source statements supporting Argentina. But that doesn't mean that we should bias the article. It cannot be neutral to go into detail on support for Argentina while acting as though Britain has none - that's Héctor Timerman's POV but it's not reality.

All that said, I agree with Curry Monster above: I note that this section was only opened after Gaba issued an ultimatum that I read as, support me or else. We're progressing fine on talk. That's the best place for this to stay. Kahastok talk 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding my name preemptively, because I consider myself involved and interested in the result of this discussion. However, there are many issues at play right now, and I don't think we could just discuss the China stance and the "double-standards" when judging WP:WEIGHT without falling in a larger discussion. Further, I still have hope in the efforts to agree on a new version.

I would suggest to leave in suspense this discussion and, in the case of no consensus being reached, open up a new ticket. --Langus (t) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I volunteer here at the DRN board. This doesn't mean my voice carries more weight that anyone elses, simply I will attempt to act as an impartial mediator. Once all parties have presented their opening statements we can proceed with the discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Please notice how Wee's wall of text does not address the very simple content issue being reported and instead makes several accusations on the editor reporting it (which I won't bother to refute since this isn't ANI) This is a perfect reflection of how he conducts himself at the talk page and precisely the reason why we can't move forward. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment [from uninvolved editor] - Speaking as an average reader, I would be interested in knowing which countries support both "sides". For example, I'd expect the article to include a paragraph like (I'm just picking random contries here):

{{quotation|Argentina's claim is supported by Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, and India. The UK's claim is supported by France, Russia, Norway, and USA. The UN has taken no position, but has encouraged the countries to engage in negotiations.}}

It looks like both parties agree that this kind of material can be included in the article, but there is a suggestion that including China (or other countries?) would violate WP:UNDUE. I don't think WP:UNDUE can be used to exclude any country's position, because that policy generally applies only when too much text is included in the article. The formulation I'm suggesting is just a brief list, so UNDUE is not violated. Of course, each country's position must be supported by a WP:RS and that source must be identified in a footnote. In summary: if the sources clearly state what China's position is, it should be included in the article. Ditto for every other country's position ... both pro-UK and pro-Argentina. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:...sorry, just noticed one opening party has not yet provided an opening statement. My apologies. I'll revisite later and amend my comment if needed. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For reference: Old version of section - here is an older version of the "International Position" section that is at issue: --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

{{quotation|The position of third countries or international organizations on the sovereignty of the islands is varied. Whilst some countries consider it a bilateral issue, others maintain neutrality but call on both countries to resolve the dispute through peaceful means or to begin dialogue. Some countries support outright either the British or the Argentine claim.[77][78][79]

France has been particularly supportive of the British position.[80][81][chronology citation needed]

The Commonwealth of Nations recognises the islands as a British territory.[82]

China has repeatedly endorsed the Argentinian claim over the islands.[83][84]

Brazil and Chile [85][86][87] officially support the Argentine claim over the Falklands, and have voiced their support at international organisations. Brazil has extended it's support to include Argentina's claims to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands [88]

}}

For reference - Jan 2013 RfC on this topic. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment A half of the dispute overview presented above is: “The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory” – “... they have yet not presented an article to source Commonwealth mention”. As a matter of fact they did, sourcing that listing to [http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140425/falkland_islands/ United Kingdom - Falkland Islands;] cf. also [http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/commonwealth/commonwealth-membership/associated-states-and-overseas-territories/ Commonwealth Membership: Associated & Overseas Territories.] Apcbg (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

::Those two are primary sources (both Commonwealth's domains). Both Wee and Kahastok have repeatedly argued against the use of primary sources which is exactly why neither of them presented those articles even though I asked them to do so repeatedly. Those two sources also can't be used to establish WP:WEIGHT in the way Wee and Kahastok say it should be established, ie: exclusively through secondary sources "on the subject at hand" (subject at hand=International position on the Falklands/Malvinas issue).

::I note that we have no secondary sources even mentioning this statement (let alone a source exclusively "on the subject at hand"), so the relevance or notability of it is very much questionable. Notwithstanding, I would be ok with the use of these two primary sources as long as we agree that a similar standard can and should be applied to the inclusion of other countries/group of countries in the section. Otherwise we'd be applying a double-standard by relaxing the conditions only for this mention and hardening them for everything else which is definitely not WP:NPOV.

::Would you like to comment on the issue of China's mention too Apcbg? Regards Gaba p (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:::The convention in DRN is to wait until all parties have posted opening comments before starting the discussion. User Kahastok has not yet posted an opening comment, so we should wait for that to happen before initiating the discussion. I myself overlooked the missing opening comment, and posted a comment here, but that was a mistake. So let's wait for Kahastok. --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

::::I see that the final (named) party has made their opening statement, so I'm un-collapsing this discussion text. --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok made some great points in their opening statement. Some brief thoughts:

:1) K writes: "There is no evidence that China's position is significant in terms of support for Argentina or that it is significant to the dispute."

:: Publicly stated support by any country is significant in and of itself. Readers will want to know what countries are supporting both "sides".

:2) K writes: "At no stage in history has China taken any action that materially affected any aspect of Falklands history"

::As long as a country makes a public statement about their position, that is sufficient. No other action is needed. Foreign policy positions are rarely supported by actions beyond their declarations.

:3) K writes: "The evidence is that China's only reason for signing statements that support Argentina is in return for Argentine statements about Taiwan."

::Good point; if there was a quid-pro-quo (and RSs so state) then that certainly should be included in the article.

Again, we need to do what's best for readers. They'll want to know what countries are supporting Arg or UK. The section should be brief and factual. Of course, support for UK must be included on an equal footing with support for Argentina. --Noleander (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

::Where does it end, though? I mean, the argument originally made was that this should extend to every country in the world that has ever made a statement. We would effectively be converting the article from an informative discussion on the dispute into little more than a list of countries that don't care and the statements they made once upon a time.

::The most accurate description of the international position would seem to be that very few countries outside Britain and Argentina themselves give two hoots about the thing. A slightly arcane dispute over a small group of islands in the middle of nowhere is going to be pretty close to the bottom of most countries' foreign policy agendas, except insofar as there is an actual risk of war. As such I do not believe it is possible to list countries in this way without enormously overstating their support.

::Even when dealing with the countries that most frequently sign statements - Argentina's neighbours in Latin America - we [http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/falklands-2012-war-or-diplomacy-4701 can source] (section "All Politics is International? The Tide of Multilateral Pressure") that they sign the statements but don't necessarily subscribe to the positions the statements espouse. When the price of doing business with a country like Argentina is to sign a throwaway statement on a dispute that they don't care about, a lot of countries will sign the statement and never think about it again. It's not a committed position. In some cases we have countries signed up to support both sides within weeks of one another - in a few cases that appeared to switch sides three times in the space of three months. That's not the sign of a dispute that countries outside the involved parties care about.

::Finally, I note that as was demonstrated when removing the old section was first proposed (and note that the archive has gone significantly out of order), many similar articles get along perfectly happily without any similar section. I don't see why we need it at all. But if we have to have it it has to be neutral, and I don't see a listing of countries that don't care, assigned to one side or the other as though they had strongly held views, as neutral. Kahastok talk 22:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Listing foreign policy positions on a major international dispute is very encyclopedic. It is only "not neutral" if editors bias the material by selectively omitting material. The older version of the article only lists only three countries/entities that have made statements (France, Brazil, Chile). How many additional countries have made statements of support in this dispute which are clearly documented by reliable sources? Five? Ten? Can you supply the sources for these additional countries? --Noleander (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

::::If you are seriously suggesting that simply compiling such a list is encyclopedic, then I have to comment that is a very naive approach to compiling this section and has already lead to a very problematic section prone to edit wars and for agenda based editing.

::::It is inappropriate because essentially it is a proposal to conduct original research. It requires editors to weigh the often contradictory statements that are out there and then synthesise a position for a particular country. The positions are not always easy to identify, far from it - countries make contradictory statements. Argentina has also muddied the waters claiming support from Caribean countries that are part of the Commonwealth of Nations, forcing several of them to issue official denials that they do not.

::::What is appropriate is to look at secondary sources to see how they describe the International dimension and this is exactly what we've done. We have looked to neutral 3rd party academic sources to describe the International dimension. The first thing you'll notice if you take this approach, is just how little WP:WEIGHT is attached to this aspect in the literature.

::::You seem to find this surprising, however, I would disagree. It is a political ploy in Argentina to constantly raise the issue for domestic political reasons but outside of Argentina few other countries see it as a foreign policy imperative. Even in the UK, Argentina's aggressive diplomatic offensive under the Kirchner presidencies has been seen as an irritant and little more. Argentina has an aggressive diplomatic agenda, it raise the subject constantly, it constantly demands statements of support at regional summits and at every foreign meeting. Any such statement on whether a country has issued a statement needs to also include the fact that Argentina solicits such statements. Another rather bizarre aspect of the Argentine diplomatic offensive is that it often issues a statement thanking countries for their support, whether they support the Argentine position or not. Often they have issued no more than a platitude that they hope the UK and Argentina can simply settle the dispute.

::::Whilst some countries, especially in Latin America, may make statements of support, in fact few of them pay more than lip service to Argentina ([http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1552227-un-juego-en-el-que-siempre-gana-gran-bretana] an article in La Nacion that makes this same point). The process of simply compiling a list is unlikely to be one that will produce a neutral text.

::::This brings me back to another point, there is also more than one way of making a text that is biased by ommission. Gaba p has insisted we are not allowed to include what commentators observe about the level of support enjoyed by Argentina. This he alleges is "watering down" or "down playing" the support that Argentina enjoys. Similarly if we are to mention China, well you're not allowed to mention that it is a quid pro quo as this "watering down" or "down playing" the support that Argentina enjoys.

::::Even if you source commentary from several sources, establish the range of opinions expressed in the literature this is alleged to be biased and Gaba p will then add a number of quotes taken from news sources as "balance" completely ignoring the WP:WEIGHT attached to such comments in the literature.

::::Another tactic is to claim no source has not been provided to establish WP:WEIGHT for any nation that supports the British position - even when it has - and to then noisily demand material is removed as WP:UNDUE.

::::Whilst I had some doubts about whether DRN is appropriate given the discussion was approaching a consensus, I have to note that I have now compromised so much the text that has now resulted has diverged so far from neutral I find I simply can't support it any more. Really if we're going to get anything out of a mediated DRN discussion, what is needed is a neutral mediator and to go back to square one. Starting with how to establish WP:WEIGHT. If the comment is going to be simply compile a list of anything you can source, then my first suggestion is going to be take this to WP:NPOVN again I can't see how anything other than the same problematic section of unencyclopedic crap will result. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::Your arguments against identifying specific countries is hard to analyze without knowing one key fact: How many countries do the sources say have expressed clear support one way or another? If the answer is only 5 or 6, that is a very small number, and identifying them would be very informative to readers. If the answer is 20 or 40, then listing them becomes tedious and it is better to summarize. From what I can glean from the Talk page, the total is only around 5 or 6, correct? --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::The answer depends on the exact terms of the question.

::::::Firstly, what constitutes clear support? Does a statement supporting negotiations constitute clear support for one side or the other? Both sides have declined discussions except on their own terms. Does a statement expressing hope for speedy resolution constitute support for either side? What about countries that have been thanked by Argentina for offering full support, but where we cannot otherwise source that full support was offered? What about those countries that have issued statements clearly supporting one side, but where we can source analysts arguing that their real position differs from the statement that they have signed - such as Chile: despite repeated statements backing Argentina, [http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/falklands-2012-war-or-diplomacy-4701 this analyst] argues that "the reality is that Chile would not like to see any sovereignty changes in South America"? It's not difficult to source this even to Argentine-biased sources.

::::::Secondly, how far back do we go? Lots of countries took an interest in 1982, because of the Falklands War. Do they count? The UN General Assembly issued resolutions in the past, the last in 1988. Does a vote in the UNGA 25 years or more ago count as "clear support" for either side?

::::::Thirdly, what about those countries that might be said to have issued clear support for both sides?

::::::Fourthly, what do we mean by "the sources"? Does that mean anything we can reliably source, or does WP:WEIGHT get taken into account? If countries have made statements that are given zero weight in the literature about the dispute or about the positions of third parties, do we count them?

::::::Depending on the answers to these questions, the number could be anything from one to a hundred and fifty or more. Kahastok talk 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Close DRN? - I notice that vigorous discussion is continuing on the article Talk page. We should have only one forum active at a time. DRN is entirely voluntary, and it looks like several editors are ignoring the DRN process. For that reason, the DRN case should probably be closed. It can always be re-opened later if the talk page discussion fails to reach a resolution (or, perhaps an RfC would be more appropriate?). I'm here only as an uninvolved editor ... DRN volunteer Cabe6403 offered to host this DRN case. We can see what they say. --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:I'll leave it for 24 hours, if the discussion continues on the talk page and the majority of the involved editors do not contribute here I will close this DRN. If the parties wish to file another one once they have finished discussing on the talk page (assuming it is not resolved) they are welcome to do so. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::Sorry for not being able to comment yesterday. Noleander: your comments reflect almost verbatim what I and a number of other editors have already told Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok. You can see by their walls of text that they simply refuse to get the point. I see Wee Curry Monster mentions taking this to WP:NPOVN. Let me point out that there already is a discussion at WP:NPOVN opened by Wee himself a couple of weeks ago in which two un-involved editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Establishing_Weight_and_Due have commented on Wee and Kahastok's "standard for inclusion"] (the same one they are presenting here) Both editors said that reliable secondary sources like newspapers are more than enough to establish weight, but Wee and Kahastok again simply refuse to get the point.

::Regarding your question, there's only a handful of positions to be mentioned: two major groups (Latin America and the EU) and two key players (the US and China). Other than these there are a few other countries that have clearly stated a position (like Spain) but their addition is debatable.

::If you go to the talk page, you'll see that there is almost a consensus to add [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Scjessey.27s_draft._Comment_area one of the versions] (the one proposed by the un-involved editor Scjessey). Wee and Kahastok are opposing it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::This is starting to look like a classic case of an international dispute carrying over into a WP article. I have no preference one way or another (UK vs Arg). But speaking as a typical WP reader: right now the article is missing key information: naming the handful of government entities that have taken a foreign policy position on the issue. If this dispute continues for awhile, an RfC may be more efficient than a DRN case, because the RfC can be semi-binding if it is formally closed. --Noleander (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::::It looks like neither side will budge on the matter. Since DRN is a voluntary process it is up to the parties to agree or come to a compromise. If that isn't likely to happen then I would second the call for an RfC as it can be somewhat enforced Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}} I am not interested in participating in DRN because I don't believe it is necessary, but I have started monitoring it. I feel moved to respond to Noleander's last comment. You say the article is "missing key information" with respect to governments with declared positions on the Falkland Islands. While it may seem appropriate to do that, it has a serious NPOV issue. The problem is the de facto status of the Falkland Islands is they are a British Overseas Territory and have been for a very long time indeed. Unless a nation wishes to specifically dispute this fact, they are unlikely to declare any position on the matter. As in the case of most disputes, it is only the entities who wish to change the status quo who are going to make a fuss; therefore, you are unlikely to find much coverage in reliable sources that is not supporting the Argentine claim. Listing countries who have recently declared a position on the status of the Falkland Islands is almost certainly going to seriously overstate support for Argentina's claim. Anyway, I would prefer to see this debate take place on the article's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::Sorry but you're both making the classic oversimplification of an issue on wikipedia, blaming everyone equally for an inability to gain agreement, when in reality a single problematic editor who won't compromise is the cause. Not only that but in a classic example of WP:BEANS you've actually given him another stick to browbeat other editors with. He has just announced that DRN has officially "endorsed" his position, ie that anything he can source must be included as that is a suitable way of establishing weight. We were getting somewhere and were close to getting agreement, now we're back to square one. Now having taken us back to square one, you're proposing to abandon us to leaving us to have to go over the same ground.

:::::I have previously supported Scjessey's text, to claim I'm blocking it is untrue I can't support it for the simple reason its been compromised and compromised to the point where it only mentions countries that support Argentina. The very comments you make about balance and NPOV and informing readers are being ignored to push a none neutral text.

:::::Is the statement that is coming from DRN that you don't have to demonstrate WP:WEIGHT ie comments should reflect the weight attached to them in the literature but you can just compile a list of random comments that support one position and ignore those that contradict it? Please do comment, that is what you're allegedly saying. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::Can you link the diff where he claims DRN endorses something? DRN, by it's very nature, is voluntary. It cannot 'endorse' anything, make official judgements or issue policies. It's simply a voluntary place to get some outside opinions. DRN only works if all the involved editors make an effort to be involved and focus the debate here. The point of suggesting we close it is that discussion is going on elsewhere and not all editors are contributing here, therefore this is an incomplete discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Cabe6403: I believe Wee might be referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=538045415&oldid=538044391 this comment of mine], the "All" section. Please note I never said DRN was "endorsing" anything, I merely commented on what editors here and at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Establishing_Weight_and_Due NPOVN] have said about the issue. If you believe that comment somehow misrepresents what Noleander has said so far then I will gladly correct myself but I have to say this looks more like another one of Wee's casual misrepresentations of my comments (something we have argued about a few times already). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}I agree with the fact that the article is missing key information and I don't believe that adding to the article information we can reliably source has any implication on NPOV. What Scjessey says is absolutely true nonetheless, there are a great number of countries voicing its support for Argentina (the party interested in changing the status quo) but virtually none doing the same for the UK (who does not want to change the status quo) I think this "analysis" should be mentioned given that we find a reliable source to do so. But again: I don't see it as a NPOV issue. This is WP and we report on what we can source. If we have no sources to back countries supporting the UK's position then the article should reflect this because it is a fact. The only way we would be violating NPOV is if we were to decide for ourselves that we should refrain from mentioning countries that clearly support a side because we can't find sources for countries supporting the other side. That would be a manufacture of the international position instead of a true reflection of its current state. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=538045415&oldid=538044391 Here]. Note that he mentions WP:NPOVN, the thread is here. Note his claim that both boards have agreed with him that WP:WEIGHT can be established by means of routine news coverage.

:::::::I feel I should be absolutely clear about what we're talking about here. Nobody is arguing that routine news coverage cannot be used to source fact (which appears to be what the NPOVN comments are about). Nobody is arguing that background news reports that discuss the issue in its entirety cannot be used to establish due weight. The question is whether the mere existence of a source documenting a particular statement, such as [http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/26/china-and-argentina-ratify-crossed-support-for-taiwan-and-falklands-claims this], establishes that a given point should be accorded due weight, no matter what subject the news report concerned is discussing and even when the point is not mentioned given any weight by reliable sources that deal with the dispute as a whole.

:::::::In short, whether the fact that [http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/26/china-and-argentina-ratify-crossed-support-for-taiwan-and-falklands-claims this] exists, taken alone, absolutely requires us to mention China by name. Kahastok talk 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::You are asking the wrong question. Once an editor has found a reliable source that says the 2nd most powerful nation on earth has taken a side in the Falk dispute, then of course it should go into the article. Excluding it is a form of censorship. You seem to think that adding that fact will somehow cause readers to get an erroneous impression of some sort. Perhaps leading them to conclude that Argentina's claim is stronger than the UKs? That is not for you to decide. We find the facts about the dispute, make sure the sources are reliable, and put them in the article. Period. UNDUE only kicks in if an editor adds way too much detail about one particular topic, out of proportion to what the sources say. For example, if an editor added 2 whole paragraphs about China, that would violate UNDUE, ... but no one is proposing that. --Noleander (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::Except there is more to it than just China deciding to support Argentina, China and Argentina have engaged in a quid pro quo in which China supports Argentina over the Falklands and in turn Argentina supports China over Taiwan. Do you not think that should be mentioned? Gaba p insists not, as that is "watering down" the dispute enjoyed by Argentina. Thats a form of censorship, if we simply state China supports Argentina but don't explain WHY! Isn't it?

:::::::::And again no, we don't just source facts and put stuff into articles see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We also have to bear in mind WP:WEIGHT, if we find the majority opinion in sources is that Chinese support is immaterial then that is a good argument for not including it. Noting also that the majority of literature on the sovereignty dispute attaches very little weight to expressions of support by various nations, then a large section listing every country who has ever commented isn't appropriate.

:::::::::So is it your opinion, anything we can source should be included? That is a POV pushers charter for chaos. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::Wee you do realize that this "Gaba p insists not, as that is "watering down" the dispute enjoyed by Argentina." is completely untrue right? You are quoting me on something I absolutely never said (!) At this point all these constant misrepresentation of other editor's comments has become so much of a habit for you that I truly believe you can't tell the difference anymore. I would strongly advice you to be far more careful when talking about what other editors said. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::No threats in this discussion please. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::Fair enough. As I see it it's a warning not a threat. In either case I removed it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}Sigh. Kahastok you are now engaging in the same war-like attitude Wee has been displaying. I absolutely never said that the noticeboards were either "endorsing" me or "agreeing" with me. I merely commented on what editors here and there had said. If you read Neolander's comments, they are almost a perfect reflection of what I've been saying at the talk page for weeks now and comments both here and at WP:NPOVN go against the ad-hoc "standard for inclusion" you and Wee are pushing.

Furthermore Kahastok is purposely downplaying the number of sources stating China's support. There are actually seven reliable sources: [http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05602.pdf UK Parliament's article], [http://www.mfa.gov.cn/esp/wjdt/gongbao/t717906.htm China's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (point 5, in Spanish)], [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768 BBC UK], [http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/26/china-and-argentina-ratify-crossed-support-for-taiwan-and-falklands-claims Mercopress], [http://www.infobae.com/notas/623735-China-reitero-su-apoyo-al-reclamo-argentino-por-las-Malvinas.html Infobae], [http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1435533-china-apoyo-el-reclamo-argentino-por-la-soberania-de-las-islas-malvinas La Nación], [http://www.clarin.com/politica/Apoyo-chino-Malvinas-inversiones-trenes_0_551944924.html Clarin] and many many more smaller sources. I argue a fact completely related to the section at hand and thoroughly mentioned in reliable secondary sources is worthy of being included. They argue it is not because ... (?) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFalkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=538045415&oldid=538044391] Here is the diff where Gaba p claims that DRN has endorsed his position that coverage alone establishes weight.

I note above that he states his belief that coverage in the media of its own establishes weight and that is sufficient. My reading of WP:WEIGHT is that the coverage in an article reflects the weight and range of opinions in the literature, which is ideally satisfied by coverage in neutral 3rd party academic sources. While the news is a valuable and frequently used WP:RS, coverage is not a suitable standard for establishing weight. I would be grateful if mediators could comment on how they interpret policy on weight.

Similarly his claim that there are only countries that has issued statements in support of Argentina. I reject that claim, there are plenty of Commonwealth states that do not and have supported the position of the islanders. I simply bring this to your attention, the official statement from the Argentine Government [http://en.mercopress.com/2013/02/05/falklands-will-be-under-argentine-control-within-20-years-timerman-tells-uk-media] insisting that not one single country in the world supports the UK governing the Falklands.

Finally, I note that Langus-TxT has joined Gaba p in making an accusation that editors are practising a "double standard". Can I ask the mediators if you feel these comments are appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:That is not a correct interpretation of WP:WEIGHT (also called WP:UNDUE). That policy only excludes information if an editor puts in too much text about it ... causing readers to get the wrong impression. The WP:NNC policy states that we dont assess the notability of individual facts when we consider them for inclusion in the article. Adding a single sentence saying "China supports Argentina's position" is not - by any stretch of the imagination - a violation of WEIGHT. Now, it may be that there are some surrounding context that is required to make sure readers dont get misled (e.g. source A says there was a quid pro quo), if so, by all means, mention that context. But all this has been said multiple times before, and you refuse to hear it. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Your comments are rather adrift from what I've actually said. In fact, from my perspective you seem determined to make things worse by endorsing Gaba p's erroneous understanding of WP:WEIGHT. He seems to believe that sourcing alone establishes weight.

:::I will state yet again just so there is no doubt whatsoever - I don't oppose mention of China, in a simple form explaining why.

:::I have in fact never opposed it.

:::The only reason to comment about WP:WEIGHT is not to insist that coverage of China is excluded but that the article warrants a small section on the International situation reflecting the weight of opinion attached to it in the literature.

:::The comments about WP:WEIGHT refer to Gaba p's erroneous belief if he can source something in a news report, he can put in anything that can be sourced that alone establishes weight. Quoting from policy:

{{cquote|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 in the published, reliable sources.}}

:::Policy requires coverage to be in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint in published, reliable sources. Simply because something can be sourced doesn't mean it has to be included, the coverage must be proportionate, which is what I'm arguing. Yet, you've loudly endorsed his approach, you keep saying he is right and I am wrong in saying coverage should be proportionate. Is that really what you want to say? Because that is what he is claiming, that you're endorsing is approach to editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::::No Wee, you don't get it (or rather refuse to get it). "Policy requires coverage to be in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint in published, reliable sources.", exactly. That's why we mention what we can source proportionate to the length in those reliable secondary sources. The mention of China is of course warranted given that it can be reliably sourced and the weight given to it by reliable sources is more than enough to warrant the length proposed (a single sentence mention). The mention of the Commonwealth is not warranted exactly for the same reasons: you have absolutely no secondary sources commenting on its position, not even a little bit. You have agreed to mention China in the article which is great, the only thing left is that you lift your block so we can establish a consensus and finally include the section into the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::(This was originally a response to your previous comment, but I feel it is still appropriate.)

::This is already too much text. As a rule, the sources give barely any weight at all to third party positions in a modern context - that's why we're having to scrabble about like this with news reports. I mentioned the point because Gaba has in the past - and is now taking this discussion as endorsing - this as applying to all countries. The standard he set previously was that any country for which a position could be sourced to two or more sources should be mentioned, and that any attempt to assess them based on how powerful they are is irredeemably offensive.

::Why, in your view, does the fact that China might be considered the second most powerful nation on Earth mean it necessarily belongs? My view differs for reasons that I gave in my opening statement. How far down the list, in your view, does this automatic relevance reach - what about Russia? France? Canada? Are they automatically relevant as well? Kahastok talk 19:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And another comment, "war like" attitude - is that appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::I think the next step here is for interested editors to create a WP:RFC on this issue ... that will bring in several uninvolved editors who can clarify the UNDUE policy. DRN typically only brings in 1 or 2 uninvolved editors, which is not sufficient in this situation. If anyone needs help with creating an RfC, I'd be happy to help. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::::Please note that both Wee and Kahastok vehemently refuse to accept a minimum mention of a country who's position can be thoroughly sourced (I've presented 7 sources here) but are right now [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Scjessey.27s_draft._Comment_area blocking the consensus at the talk page] arguing that the position of the Commonwealth must be included even though they have presented exactly zero secondary sources for it. This is what I mean when I comment on their "double standards". Their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude here is an exact reflection of what has been going on at the talk page for weeks now.

::::I thank you very much for your input Noleander. Hopefully your clear comments will help solve this issue over at the talk page. If the consensus is still blocked a few days from now (and if the others editors working over at the talk page agree to it) I'll ask you to please open an RfC as an un-involved editor. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is turning a little sour with the main points of the discussion being diluted by finger pointing and bickering. Although I don't have the authority to enforce what I am about to propose I would like it if the involved editors at least humour me as we try come to an amicable resolution.

I would like the main three parties involved here (Wee Curry Monster, Kahastok and Gaba p) to write a short summary of their stance on the situation. It is to be focused purely on content, no finger pointing, name calling or anything. It is to be no more than 200 words (not even 201). Imagine if you only had 200 words to get your point across and you were allowed to say no more after that.

I would ask that all editors refrain from commenting on others statements until all have responded and I have had a chance to read up and respond.

Like I say, this is voluntary and you are welcome to ignore it but distilling this down to the content will make the issue clearer. If you agree to participate in this experiment simply write your statements and no more. No snappy comments about other users involvement, nothing. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:May I add my view? --Langus (t) 04:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

::Yes, of course. I simply added the names of the three I observed to be most active on this page Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

200 Word statement by Gaba p

The position of China should be mentioned given that it can be thoroughly sourced (7 sources) and it's a single-sentence mention what is being proposed so there is no violation of WP:WEIGHT. The Commonwealth should not be mentioned since we have exactly zero secondary sources to back its inclusion. That's it.

200 Word statement by Wee Curry Monster

Per WP:WEIGHT since sources on the sovereignty dispute do not dwell on the International dimension, a short summary section is warranted. I believe the content should include:

1. Argentine motivations (a) Domestic politics (b) 1994 Constitution

2. Argentine diplomatic offensive to constantly raise the issue

3. Latin American support noting that commentators observe it is little more than "lip service"

4. US official policy of neutrality but noting that previously it supported the UK due to its own dispute over the Falklands

5. Commonwealth of Nations support for the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination

6. EU dimension

7. China's previous ambivalent position changing to support due to a quid pro quo with Argentina in return for support on Taiwan.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=537867854] Note my opening statement - I have never said China should not be mentioned. Can we have that noted please. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that was around 150 words....

200 Word statement by Kahastok

Sorry for the wait:

My view remains that the WP:WEIGHT provided by the sources on the subject suggests that no section at all is the most appropriate position. But if we are to have one, I would note:

• The section should be sustainably short, under a level-3 heading rather than a level-2 heading.
• We should mention Argentina's aggressive approach to soliciting support straight out.
• We should discuss the point in terms of generalities, and should avoid listing countries (though that's not to say we should avoid mentioning e.g. the US) or individual statements, or attempting to provide exhaustive coverage.
• We should not, by implication, omission or statement, suggest that either side has no support - this would be neither neutral nor accurate. A mention of the Commonwealth is a reasonable means of reflecting the British side.
• Where sources suggest that support that is otherwise mentioned carries caveats or qualifications (Latin America's "lip service"), or is offered in return for some form of inducement (China's quid pro quo), the section should mention this.
• I have yet to see evidence or argument that persuades me that a mention of China is appropriate. Kahastok talk 10:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

200 Word statement by Langus

I know I'm a bit behind, sorry for that:

• Latin American support should definitely be mentioned. There was an objection to the amount of international bodies mentioned (three), so I think two bodies or just "the majority of Latin America" would suffice.
• If the US is so relevant that we must include it, so is China, specially having a clear stance.
• The listing of the islands as British OCT are not a declaration of support for the British position (unless proved by secondary sources). This doesn't mean we should not mention them, but we must avoid WP:OR
• Speculation about Argentine or Latin American reasons (as proposed above) should be avoided. This is a major setback to reach consensus, and it's only tangentially related to main point (International position). Such observations are not universally held. China & Taiwan could be a different case tho.
• The UN and the Decolonization Committee recommendations should be mentioned.
• The section should be short, although I'm struggling to find a way to include it under a L3 heading under the current structure.
• We must avoid harsh words that could be seen as a failure to WP:NPOV. --Langus (t) 17:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I have two questions:

1. Are there really no sources that back the commonwealth position? I find that hard to believe considering the issue at hand.
2. What is the issue with mentioning all countries that have a stance in the matter as is done at articles like International recognition of Kosovo and International recognition of Palestine Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::A key difference on the second question is that those articles are discussing places that claim to be sovereign states.

::In that case, there is a fairly simple black-and-white question. Either you recognise that country as a sovereign state or you don't. And that's an ongoing statement of position - there will be no statement made but we can be certain that Britain recognises Kosovo today and that Argentina does not. There's no grey areas, no in-between space, no room for doubt and no room not to take a decision. If you don't actively recognise Kosovo, then you do not recognise Kosovo. And once you've recognised a state as sovereign, that position tends to be permanent, or at least semi-permanent. It is unusual for a country to revoke recognition and when they do that too tends to be a permanent or semi-permanent status.

::This is not the case here. In this case, there is room to wiggle out of the question, or come to a more nuanced position, or just not to take a position at all. There are lots of shades of grey. When asked to give an opinion a lot of countries call for a speedy resolution without saying that resolution should be, or back negotiations without saying what the outcome of the negotiations should be. Argentina has taken such statements as support for her position, though this is often not actually the case. Several times, Argentina has thanked a country for its support only for the country concerned to deny that such support was offered. The Argentine press reports the thanks but not the denial and the Argentine government is happy.

::If we tried to claim that every country that has not stated a preference prefers the status quo (i.e. supports the British) - which would be the equivalent of saying that all countries that have not actively recognised a state do not recognise it - I am certain that there would be howls of outrage from Gaba and others.

::We can contrast the ongoing and semi-permanent nature of recognition of sovereignty with the fact that there and are several countries that have signed statements backing both sides in this dispute within weeks of one another. A statement or description of a position is an expression of an opinion at a particular moment, but does not necessarily imply ongoing support. With recognition of Kosovo, the fact of recognition applies until it is revoked, no matter who asks. This is not the case with a statement supporting one side in a dispute such as this.

::Ultimately, I believe it is impossible to create such a list without WP:OR and bias, because whereas International recognition of Kosovo relies on positions that are black and white, the question in this case is rarely anything other than a shade of grey. Kahastok talk 11:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::I have a similarly detailed response written up for the first one, but it occurs to me that this is going to turn into a wall of text. So, in brief:

::*No, but it shouldn't surprise that Gaba claims that there isn't.

::*The proposed wording is [t]he Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory, which is accurate and easily sourced.

::*Commonwealth support tends to be demonstrated through actions rather than words, which reflects the British approach that does not request continual statements of support. The wording reflects this.

::*We can also make a case for individual Commonwealth countries. In particular, the case for including Canada is significantly stronger than the case for including China, though I would be inclined to include neither.

::If you want me to post the full whack, let me know. Kahastok talk 12:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:::As I've stated earlier and elsewhere, it will be difficult to find sources that support the position of the Falkland Islanders and Britain because that is the status quo. In contrast, Argentina's aggressive lobbying of various nations yields news stories that provide plenty of sources for the relatively few countries that support their position. The following statements are probably true, but difficult to source:

:::*Most countries of the world support the position of the Falkland Islanders and Britain, but have not stated their positions because they support the status quo. The silent majority.

:::*Few countries support the Argentine position, but those that do have been encouraged to state their support recently. The vocal minority.

:::Unfortunately, trying to explain this problem in the article would require original research. Listing the countries that have citable, stated positions will always have WP:NPOV issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::::Kahastok, you state that the position of recognising Kosovo is a black or white decision, either they do or they don't but that recognising the Falklands as part of the UK or Argentina is a grey area. It would seem to me that either you support Argentina or support the UK. Considering you said "If you don't actively recognise Kosovo then you do not recognise Kosovo" would it not be fair to say "If you don't actively dispute the UK's claim on The Falklands then you do not recognise Argentina's claim"? [this unsigned post was from Cabe6403]

:::::I don't think you can compare Kosovo with the Falkland Islands at all. The former is a "young" nation that only declared itself independent in 2008, so it was necessary for countries of the world to formally state their positions quite recently. In contrast, there was no formal declaration of independence made by the Falkland Islands and their status has remained the same for the best part of two centuries. It has not been necessary for countries to come forward and state their position because of a change of status. Kahastok is right about the grey area. It is not a black or white issue because there are three possible positions:

:::::#Support the Argentine position

:::::#Support the Falkland Islander's position

:::::#Consider the matter undecided

:::::It is the latter position that causes the grey area. Some nations have come out and said they consider the matter undecided and encourage talks in the hope of a resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::It's an argument, sure, and I would consider it not an unreasonable one. Certainly, it would tally strongly with the two countries' different approaches to this point - Argentina is noisy because they want change, while Britain (and the FIG) wants everyone to keep quiet and just assume the status quo. But I think when Gaba reads it I'll be able to hear his protests from here. And I rather doubt that we could put it or anything like it in the article without straying somewhat from policy.

:::::I agree with Scjessey above, ultimately, and note that even support for one or other position has not generally been the end of the matter for any particular country. Kahastok talk 14:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}A few comments:

1. I like Wee Curry Monster's proposal in his 200 word statement. Seems like a great middle ground
2. The foreign policy positions of other countries re the Falklands is eminently encyclopedic. Readers want to know that information. We do not omit information from the encyclopedia because editors feel it may present a distorted picture to readers. If it is distorted, there will be sources that say so, and we can include those source.
3. Editors arguing against inclusion of foreign policy statements rely on claims like "There are few countries that publically support UK because that is the status quo" or "Argentina is very noisy & agressive in their solicitation of support". If those claims are true, then let's find sources for the claims and include the claims in the article following the China/Latin America positions. If there are no sources found, then those claims are just the opinions of editors and should not serve to exclude material from the article.

--Noleander (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:WCM has proposed to mention that Latin American support is little more than "lip service". Would you accept to include such a bold statement in Wikipedia even if that is not the universally held opinion?

:Also, I fail to see why editors believe that the US or the EU are much more relevant than China. Wouldn't that be too Western-centric? --Langus (t) 17:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::Everything in the article must be supported by reliable sources, in accordance with the WP:Verifiability policy. If an editor suggests including some fact F (such as "Latin American support is merely lip service") then we may presume that the editor has a source that states fact F. If there is no reliable source, it does not go in the article. Regarding US vs China: I don't recall any editor saying that US/EU views should be included and China should be excluded (I think the editors fall into two camps: name all; or name none). In any case, yes, it would be inappropriate to include US/EU but exclude China. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:::I note that my find tool cannot find either of your quotes in your message of 16:09, 16 February 2013 anywhere else on this page. Could you provide diffs please?

:::So far, I've seen lots of you asserting that China is relevant but I do not believe that I have yet seen a policy-based reason. Simply saying that China is the "2nd most powerful nation on earth" may be your perception, but I don't believe that policy generally considers that good enough. As I asked before, how far down the list of the most powerful nations are you arguing that inherent relevance lasts?

:::My perception, as I believe I have mentioned, is quite different. China is a strong economic power but its political influence is relatively limited outside its own backyard and areas of economic interest. China has little economic interest in the South-West Atlantic, a region that could not be much further from China's backyard. There are no factors that seem to me to argue that China is significantly more relevant than any one of a number of other states. But both those perceptions are irrelevant. I would like to see a policy-based argument that suggests that China is relevant on its own merits. I do not believe I have yet seen one - certainly not one that I found persuasive.

:::Let us suppose that in three months time, after a brief meeting between the presidents of Argentina and Ruritania (an small country on the far side of the world with close to zero international influence), an editor turns up and says, there is no reason to mention China but not to mention Ruritania. The sourcing for Ruritania's position is just as good, and we have no objective reason to include China and exclude Ruritania other than our own perceptions of their significance, and they argue that those perceptions are highly offensive and that we cannot apply them in any case per WP:NOR. Do you think that Ruritania would have to be included? If so, why, and if not, what argument would you use against it? Kahastok talk 19:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}} I think it is patently obvious that Argentina's aggressive lobbying is going to create more noise (and thus more sources) than the supporters of the status quo who don't need to say anything. This is clearly the case regardless of whether or not reliable sources back the statement up. Noleander keeps saying the opinion of other countries is "encyclopedic", but I would say that is only the case in the proper weight. It is impossible to fairly represent the positions of nations who don't state them, and why state them (and thus draw the ire of Argentina) if they don't need to? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:Kahastok, your Ruritania example is a slippery slope fallacy. I would oppose to it, since Rituania lacks the international influence that China enjoys:

:*In the first decade of the 21st Century, China has risen to become an international power second only to the United States.

:*Chinese and international commentators call for major changes in global governance to take account of China’s leading role.

:*China is well positioned as the sole representative from Asia and from the developing world among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

:*Beijing pushes for reforms in international financial institutions that would give China a much more prominent role in setting their policies.

:*China participates actively in new international groupings, notably the G-20, that give much greater emphasis to the interests and needs of large developing countries than did previous leading international economic groupings like the G-7 or G-8.

:*China has collaborated closely with Brazil, India and Russia in a new international grouping known as the BRIC. Another new grouping includes South Africa along with China, India and Brazil and it is known as BASIC.

:*Prominent international dignitaries have called upon the United States and China to take the leading role in global politics by forming a “G-2” alignment to deal with salient international problems.

:Taken from [http://www.american.edu/sis/aseanstudiescenter/upload/Sutter-110105-article-for-compendium-Tzifakas-ed.pdf China’s Growing International Role], by [http://elliott.gwu.edu/faculty/sutter.cfm Robert Sutter], third hit in my Google search.

:I note that you demand "a policy-based argument that suggests that China is relevant on its own merits", but you don't need one for the United States. I think the fact speaks for itself. --Langus (t) 02:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

::Actually, Gaba has used precisely the arguments I noted in the discussion on talk. That if we mention one state we must mention all states and it's highly offensive to do anything else. It's not so much a slippery slope, as anticipating the next step based on arguments that have already been raised. I want to know that we won't be back here in three months time dealing with exactly the same arguments regarding half a dozen other countries - with the end result of a section no shorter than the one we got rid of.

::Your argument seems to be that the China is the second most powerful country in the world. Now I'm not sure there's much in there that I couldn't quibble with, but I don't see any point because I see no need to argue with that statement.

::The argument I put to you, and the argument I believe that the editor concerned would use, is that the leap you are making from China being the second most powerful country in the world to China's position being relevant in a particular dispute is pure original research. It is your supposition, not backed up by evidence. And we could make a very similar case for any number of countries, including some of the fellow members of some of the organisations you mention who (unlike China) have a clear economic or political interest in the South Atlantic. We could probably put something similar together for Ruritania, for that matter. So I find the argument unpersuasive.

::And I note that I have never argued that a mention of the United States does not have to stand on its own merits. But we're not starting from the same place. Both the anecdotal evidence surrounding US interest in the region (the sort that you attempt to apply for China), and the actual sources that I have seen, suggest to me that the United States' interest in and relevance to the dispute is significantly stronger than China's, and I note that (unlike China) the United States has been playing a significant and meaningful role in the dispute - beyond simply making statements - throughout the history of the dispute. Every case needs to be judged on its merits, and I see no reason on that basis to assume that the conclusion for the US and the conclusion for China will be the same. Kahastok talk 11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}} Since certain editors here seem to think it is a good idea to state the positions of countries, why don't we have two lists? The first list can be all the countries who have expressed support for the Argentine position, and the second list can be all the countries who have not. We can start with the 192 countries in the UN and expand it to include countries like Taiwan, Tibet, South Ossetia, Kosovo and Chechnya who have not yet achieved full UN recognition (expands the number to around 230). We can list the countries alphabetically so that there is no original research over which countries are more important. This system has advantages for both "sides". Firstly, it eliminates the arguments over the Commonwealth and the EU (because we can represent the members independently). Secondly, it eliminates the weight problem over China, because it makes its importance in the article equal to any other nation. Thirdly, it eliminates the need to find reliable sources for the "have not expressed support for the Argentine position" column because, as we have already established, silence on the matter is essentially equivalent to support for the status quo. For countries that have flipped back and forth with support, we simply take their most recent stance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:That would be a whole article on its own... And still leaves us with the problem of interpretation of the EU's list of overseas territories, for example. Also, Scjessey, if silence on the matter "is essentially equivalent to support for the status quo", then the calls for negotiations would be essentially questioning the status quo, right? That is closer to Argentina's position than a neutral one. Just a thought for you.

:@Kahastok: China has strong interest on the region, bear no doubt. Have you heard about commodities? Brazil and Argentina are among the top producers of soy bean and meat, Chile's mining industry is its main source of income. All those resources are vital for China's expansion: better income means better and more food for its inhabitants. In Argentina we are very aware of that, it is what has been fueling the economy the last decade.

:China's explosive expansion is recent, but do note that it is one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council since its foundation (a measure for relevance suggested before, in talk page). Its relevance is water clear; and if in doubt, it can be sourced, like I just did. Or, if you wonder about its relevance in this dispute, see: [http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/26/china-and-argentina-ratify-crossed-support-for-taiwan-and-falklands-claims][http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768][http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/china-backs-argentina-on-falklands/story-fn6b3v4f-1226147064096][http://en.mercopress.com/2011/09/10/argentina-thanks-china-for-its-standing-support-in-the-malvinas-sovereignty-dispute][http://www.fpif.org/articles/china_and_the_end_of_the_monroe_doctrine][http://www.uknda.org/File/Inconvenient%20Truths%20Tue%2027%20Final%20%20%28F1.3%29.pdf]

:Regards. --Langus (t) 15:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

::It wouldn't be a "whole article". It could be a list or table that could be collapsed. I don't see what the list of overseas territories has to do with it. And calling for negotiations to resolve the dispute says absolutely nothing about the status of the Falkland Islands. Rather it is a desire for the dispute to end one way or another. So unless a nation has specifically come out in favor of Argentina's claim, it belongs in the other list. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}Hi everyone, sorry for not being able to answer in these last days. A couple of points:

1- I see in my absence the matter digressed a bit. This DRN was opened to solve a very particular issue: addition or not of China/Commonwealth. Wee has already stated he is in favor of mentioning China but still believes the Commonwealth should be mentioned. Kahastok is in favor of mentioning the Commonwealth too but not China. Neither of them have presented a secondary source yet for the Commonwealth. How are we to add something to an article with no secondary sources to back its inclusion? This is a very simple issue here folks. Present the secondary sources and we can be done with this.

2- I still can't understand Kahastok's reasoning here. He argues against the inclusion of China (thoroughly sourced) but for the addition of the Commonwealth (not one secondary source provided yet) How does your "how far down the list should we go" reasoning allows you to disregard China but back the Commonwealth?

3- Scjessey: this "silence on the matter is essentially equivalent to support for the status quo" is not right. In any case I'd say silence on the matter equals neutrality, but just as your assertion above it's WP:OR and simply not acceptable.

4- Let me quote a bit of one of Neolander's comment which I think summed up the issue:

{{cquote|Editors arguing against inclusion of foreign policy statements rely on claims like "There are few countries that publically support UK because that is the status quo" or "Argentina is very noisy & agressive in their solicitation of support". If those claims are true, then let's find sources for the claims and include the claims in the article following the China/Latin America positions. If there are no sources found, then those claims are just the opinions of editors and should not serve to exclude material from the article.}}

:This is Wikipedia folks. We base our edits on sources. If there's a source for the claims stated above then as Neolander says, we can add it. Everything else is just WP:OR.

5- Regarding the Commonwealth, if we can find a secondary source for its position then of course we add it. But if the standard for addition is being mentioned in one or two secondary sources then we apply this same standard to all other countries or group of countries. Anything else is just us applying a double standard to the section.

Can we try to put an end to this issue? It's been a month and we are still discussing the section. The only thing blocking Scjessey's last version is Wee and Kahastok's wish that the Commonwealth be mentioned. I say, present the secondary sources and we add it. Otherwise we should move on with the proposed version and improve the section when new sources become available. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:A "neutral" position is the equivalent of "don't change anything because it is fine the way it is". Diplomats will only make a statement if they wish to see the status quo change, or if it is specifically in their best interests to support one "side" or the other. Otherwise they do not say anything at all, because it isn't diplomatic to do so. A lack of a statement is implicit support of the status quo. That's not original research. It's blindingly obvious. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

::I disagree, it would appear you equate "neutral" with "support for the UK's claim". A lack of statement is in no way support for the status quo, it's simply a lack of statement which means no support for either party. In any case we would still need a source that claims what either you or I say. I'd be more than willing to discuss this matter further if you wish to, but I suggest we try to close this issue first.

::Your last proposed version is right now only being held by the Commonwealth mention. If Wee and Kahastok want to add it they need to present at least one secondary source (I'm not asking for a whole lot here, am I?) If they are ok with including it poorly sourced (using only a primary source) then I see no reason why they would oppose the addition of other countries similarly sourced or even terribly better (ie: China). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:::You obviously have a poor understanding of the way diplomacy works if you think a lack of a statement means nothing. The absence of a statement is just as significant as a statement itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}I've answered Scjessey in his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scjessey#On_diplomatic_silence own talk page] to avoid further disruption of the issues at hand here.

As I've said, the only thing blocking the section from being included in the article right now is Wee and Kahastok's unwillingness to either compromise to not mention the Commonwealth in this version (as I have compromised by agreeing to not mention China although I believe it definitely merits inclusion) or present at least one secondary source commenting the Commonwealth's position on the island's sovereignty to back its inclusion in the section. I'm asking for one single secondary source here. Could we agree to move on with that section and discuss the rest of the matters (China, Commonwealth, etc..) down the road? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:I hope that you're not suggesting my edits are a form of disruption, Gaba? My suggestion about the two lists is a serious one that is designed to negate all the debate of both the Commonwealth and the China positions. Almost every nation of the world has a recorded position on the Falklands issue by virtue of various UN General Assembly resolutions over the years. A list of those who have expressed support the Argentine position and a list of those who have not expressed support for the Argentine position would be very easy to source. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

::I would open by suggesting that trying to limit DRN to a narrowly focused question favouring one party is inappropriate. There was a willingness to discuss the matter in Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, opening a narrowly focused DRN on a single aspect of the disputed content discussion is to use DRN disruptively to favour one aspect of the content discussion. If DRN is appropriate, it should consider the wider content discussion.

::Indeed, as Scjessey has suggested an absence of those not expressing support for the Argentine position is a) relatively easy to support and b) support for a no change position (which would favour the UK by the by). I would comment that the only thing that prevented the current suggestion from going forward was Langus and Gaba p's insistence on A) including China and B) excluding the Commonwealth of Nations.

::Regarding the support for the Argentine position, I have seen it suggested that no sources have been provided that support the "lip service" comment. I do not believe this is the case. Exhibit (A) [http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/falklands-2012-war-or-diplomacy-4701], Exhibit (B) [http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1552227-un-juego-en-el-que-siempre-gana-gran-bretana], translation corroborated by Exhibit (C) [http://en.mercopress.com/2013/02/07/audacity-and-tolerance-who-can-imagine-hague-publicly-lobbying-the-falklands-case-in-buenos-aires] and Exhibit (D) [http://www.linguee.com/spanish-english/translation/m%E1s+all%E1+de+las+palabras.html], which shows the literal translation is not always appropriate Exhibit (E) [http://translate.google.co.uk/#es/en/m%C3%A1s%20all%C3%A1%20de%20las%20palabras]. I believe 5 sources are more than adequate, as noted Gaba p insists only 2 are needed to establish "weight".

::I would also suggest that the position of Canada as a member of the OAS is included as well, since the lack of resolution from the OAS in favour of Argentina caused a particularly notable incident, where the President of Argentina stormed out of the summit of the Americas when it failed to pass a resolution in favour of Argentina.

::I am encouraged my content suggestion is considered appropriate, I thank you for the confidence in supporting it giving our previous misunderstanding User:Noleander. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:::No I am not Scjessey, at all. Perhaps "disruption" was a poor choice of words, I meant we should focus on the consensus we have almost at hand right now instead of discussing a new way to re-factor the section from scratch. Once again this is what I propose: let's move forward with Scjessey's last version in the talk page and if Wee and/or Kahastok can come up with a secondary source to back the inclusion of the Commonwealth, they can easily add it later on. I am completely open to discussing whether China or other countries belong in the section or whether we should make a full list of all countries but that should be done after a minimum version of the section is included in the article. Otherwise this issue will never end and the section will forever be "in the making". Do you see anything inherently wrong with what I'm proposing here Scjessey? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

::::Please note how Wee once again makes a quite large comment but refuses to give once again a single secondary source to back the Commonwealth's inclusion in the section. Meanwhile the version proposed by Scjessey is still being blocked by him and Kahastok due to their unwillingness to accept a version without it. How long will this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude prevent moving on with the improvement of the article?

::::Just to make it completely clear, Wee: could you tell us why do you oppose Scjessey's last version? If the reason is the lack of mention of the Commonwealth as I state above, could you please present here at least a single secondary source to back its inclusion? Please please please please try to provide a direct and honest answer to those questions. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::I refer to this post of 20th January 2013 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=537621395], the intermediate posts and this one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=537621395]. I have repeatedly offered a secondary source that establishes WP:WEIGHT for including the Commonwealth of Nations. I don't see persistently denying that I have done so helps move the discussion forward. I also suggest refraining from referring to editor conduct as mediators have suggested. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::I think you've got the wrong link in the first? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=534051363 This one]?

::::::I agree with your points, and note that I find the position stated above that any mention of support for the British side in only acceptable if accompanied by massive increase coverage of support for Argentina perverse. The point of the rules is to get to neutrality, not to overrule neutrality, which is the effect of Gaba's proposals here. Kahastok talk 22:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}Wee: would you be so kind as to point me to what page precisely mentions the Commonwealth of Nations and its view on the sovereignty issue? Remember Wee, the name of the section is International and regional views. What view (or position) of the Commonwealth are you trying to mention? Also, how is a 25 years old book supposed to be a source for the current position of a given group of countries?. Thank you.

Kahastok: we don't manufacture neutrality, we report what reliable sources state. You appear to believe that we must edit the article as to give equal weight to voiced opinions supporting both sides when clearly it can't be done. There are a lot more sources to include countries backing Argentina than there are for countries backing the UK. This has been discussed already, what we should try to source is the statement that the UK is not interested in countries voicing anything because it wants to maintain the status quo, instead of trying to manually obscure information because you think it skews the section. Regards Gaba p (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

::Actually, I believe it would generally be accepted that using a source such as a book on the subject for weight and then using other sources to keep the facts up-to-date would be a very much better way of doing writing articles than your method of counting news reports and announcing that whatever has most is most important. Apparently you've decided to ignore anything that you don't feel is recent enough. We should be taking a long view here.

::I'm certainly not trying to "manually obscure information" here - and that's not something that you should be accusing me of. But we should be aiming for neutrality. It's not about equal weight - none of the proposals on talk give equal weight to the two sides. You are proposing that we imply that everyone supports Argentina and nobody at all supports Britain. You're effectively telling us that we should be taking the Argentine government's POV at face value when we know that it isn't inaccurate. And I do not for a moment believe that that is neutral. Kahastok talk 18:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:::"You are proposing that we imply that everyone supports Argentina and nobody at all supports Britain", no I am not. It doesn't matter how many times you and Wee repeat this falsehood, it won't magically come true you know? Anyway, let's try once again at coming up with a compromise.

:::Leaving aside the fact that you, Wee, myself end everyone here knows that a 25 year old book that makes no mention whatsoever on the position of a group of countries is in no way a reliable source for the current position of that group of countries, I'll compromise and accept that book as a source. Furthermore, the position of Canada should definitely be added given that its support for the islanders self-determination can be sourced. Of course China should also be added for the same reasons. So I've prepared a new version in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#The_proposed_drafts_area article's talk page] that is basically Scjessey's last version with this additions and nothing else. Hopefully this will finally allow us to reach a compromise and be done with this long dragged issue. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

::::If you change this: "China has also stated its support for Argentina's sovereignty claim." to "In a reciprocal agreement, Argentina's sovereignty claim is supported by China in return for support for China's claim over Taiwan." (or something similar), I'll support your new proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}How about this Scjessey: "China has ratified its backing for Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of this country's claim to Taiwan." (wording taken from the [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768 BBC UK article], slightly modified)

I see Langus made a WP:BOLD edit and inserted your last proposed version (after which an IP editor added some information about a declaration by the African continent) If you are ok with the wording I propose then I can add this sentence along with the mentions of the Commonwealth and Canada to the section. Would that be acceptable? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Please let's leave the recent declaration for later analysis and confirmation... We already have lots of issues and this is just too recent to consider its inclusion, specially under our circumstances. --Langus (t) 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::Kahastok already removed the whole section so... What do you think about the new revised section I propose? If you and Scjessey are on board I'll add it to the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::I don't think you need the "ratified" part, and "this country" sounds awkward. Simply say "China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan." If you are happy with that, feel free to apply it to the article with my blessing. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I remain opposed. I find the section added:

• Inappropriately lists countries whose significance is doubtful, notably China and Canada. I believe that Canada is more justified, but neither has enough justification not to be undue weight and not to encourage other inappropriate additions.
• Does not adequately put across the well-sourced reservations and qualifications behind Latin American support.
• Inaccurately suggests that Canada's position at the OAS was a one-time position: it is not difficult to source the contrary.

I note that as soon as Langus added the section, we immediately saw someone trying the latest claimed statement from the Cancillería (Argentine Foreign Ministry) in Buenos Aires, claiming support of all of Africa. It wouldn't be the first time that the Cancillería had claimed support from countries who have not expressed such an opinion, so their statements are generally not reliable. But the response above seems to be that we should leave it for later rather than simply exclude it.

There is simply no point in agreeing a short section if it's not sustainably short. If we're going to start off short but promptly lengthen the thing with any statement we can find - particularly as in this case when the only source that such a statement was made was the Cancillería (and the fact that it was published in an Argentine newspaper is irrelevant as they attribute it to the Cancillería) - then this whole process is a waste of time so far as I am concerned.

I suggest that we should see if any DRN volunteer is interested in continuing the case here - Cabe hasn't edited since the 16th - and if not we should continue any discussion at the talk page. Kahastok talk 17:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Scjessey: done. I'll add the section to the article and tomorrow (or Monday) I'll add the relevant sources. Cheers.

:::Kahastok: your continued suggestions that the right path is to obscure relevant, properly sourced and encyclopedic information from Wikipedia has been explained as not reasonable to you on several occasions. If you believe this process to be a waste of time, you are welcome to excuse yourself from contributing at any time. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::::@Kahastok: "the response above seems to be that we should leave it for later rather than simply exclude it" -- If you referring to my response, you are terribly wrong: I tried to hint with the words confirmation and analysis (like in "weight analysis") a view similar to yours.

::::Are you aware that if this DRN fails, and we can't break past the China & Commonwealth issue, we'll eventually go back to the firsts days of January? If you compare that version with the one you reverted, you'll find it is several times longer... --Langus (t) 23:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::::Gaba: it would be a waste of all of our time, not just mine.

::::There is normally an agreement implicit in the consensus building process, that if you agree to something, you don't then immediately start to work against it. You now seem to be telling me that this is not the case here: that even if consensus is reached for a short version, you'll promptly be trying to lengthen it with anything you can find. I've looked several times, but I really don't think I can read your response in any other way. Working on those terms, I would feel the need to oppose any new section, regardless of what it said.

::::I note that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&curid=2758249&diff=539926815&oldid=539869668 this] does not represent a consensus at this time and I find your decision to attempt to impose your preferred solution distinctly unhelpful. We should wait until we have views from all involved editors, or at least an indication that they are no longer interested. We don't assume that editors will be on Wikipedia every day, and the fact that some editors have not edited over the last few days is not an indication of lack of interest.

::::I note that I have yet to see a persuasive argument that listing countries apparently at random and giving positions is either relevant or encyclopædic. The arguments I've seen seem to boil down to WP:ITSIMPORTANT without reasons related to the dispute, and that counting sources not about the subject is an appropriate means of judging weight on an article about the subject. I find both singularly unpersuasive. On the other hand, I believe that one might very well characterise your refusal, without comment, to even mention that the support from Latin America comes with reservations as an attempt "to obscure relevant, properly sourced and encyclopedic information from Wikipedia".

::::Langus: no. If there is no consensus then the last consensus - which was for nothing at all - prevails. But in practice, there are other avenues, such as asking the volunteers here to help us put together an RFC to resolve the issue through outside comment. And this is why I suggest we wait for volunteer comment - we're not actually doing anything here that we would not be doing on talk anyway, so is there really any need to carry it on on this page? FWIW I believe that the failure of Gaba's current proposal to note the well-sourced reservations as to Latin American support may be a barrier to consensus as well. Kahastok talk 13:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::I've yet to here from Wee on this, but I think the most recent version added to the article (which Gaba and I worked out together) is a reasonable compromise. I urge everyone to adopt this as the basis for moving forward. And having these discussions both here and at the article talk page is getting irritating. Since the basis for the original dispute has been more or less resolved, can we move back to the article talk page now? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::The original dispute was that WCM & Kahastok argue "that China's position should not be included in the section and at the same time that the British Commonwealth should be included". I may be wrong but I think they continue on their stance.

::::::@Kahastok: "the last consensus" is the version that remained stable in the article for several months (proof: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&oldid=530600849 December 2012], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&oldid=500224760 July 2012], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=479749890#International_position March 2012]), before the two-months-old edit war started. I am extremely alarmed because I think you're implying that, because Gaba and myself agreed as a sign of good faith to temporally remove the section, in response to Irondome's call for toning down the discussion (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=535920018][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=535921442&oldid=535920906][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=next&oldid=535921442][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&diff=535956519&oldid=535953772] for proof), that removal is now "the last consensus". Is this what you're saying?? --Langus (t) 18:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|98.164.89.101|09:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No current discussion. Last edit to talk page was nearly a month ago, as was last edit to article by either of the users involved. No indication of how filing IP is involved. CarrieVS (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Red Tails#Lies_and_inaccuracy}}

Users involved

• {{User|Bzuk}}
• {{User| Ranger Steve}}

Dispute overview

The disputants agree that the historical facts are that there were a number of reasons for bomber escorts in WWII to leave their bombers unprotected aginst enemy attack. The movie depicts all but "Red Tails" escorts as leaving only due to being baited away by german decoy planes and/or to "chase rabbits, glory and kill scores".

The disputants claim that unless some third party publication notes this it is original research.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third party opinion

How do you think we can help?

Determine if the edit in question is original research or not as claimed by the disputing parties.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Uzma Gamal|11:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Current discussion at WP:AN#Improper merge. CarrieVS (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Heart and Soul (1938 song)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Uzma Gamal}}
• {{User| Richhoncho}}
• {{User| Kww}}

Dispute overview

Richhoncho opened a talk page merge discussion that proposed to merge Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) into Heart and Soul (1938 song). I opposed. User Kww then expressed an opinion in the deletion debate agreeing with Richhoncho. The merge discussion still is open, yet both Richhoncho and Kww separately merge the articles after I returned the articles to an unmerge state.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heart_and_Soul_(The_Cleftones)&action=history][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heart_and_Soul_(1938_song)&action=history]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted at [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Improper_merge Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard], I asked both involved editors on the merge discussion talk page to keep the articles in the unmerged state while the merge discussion is open.

How do you think we can help?

You can help resolve the dispute by helping all us involved editors to keep the articles in the unmerged state while the discussion is ongoing. That would bring back the notices of the merge proposal at the top of each article. With only three editors involved, the proposal needs more discussion from additional editors. Per a Help Desk suggestion, I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers indicating that the proposal needs more discussion. Kww posted there that he already performed the merge, but left out that he was directly involved in the merge proposal discussion. That resulted in GenQuest removing my notice publicizing the merge.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers&oldid=540047098#Completed_requests] You also can help resolve the dispute by helping all us involved editors to not interfere with efforts to bring in additional editors to comment in the discussion. If an admin who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal discussion makes a determination as to whether consensus has been established and closes the discussion, I'm fine with that.

This so-called dispute is because one editor does not understand the difference between Song, Recording, Performance and Single. Complaints that this merge was closed too quick should be compared with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heart_and_Soul_%28The_Cleftones%29&diff=537019376&oldid=536752949 this edit]. The user refuses to accept or understand the concept of WP:SONGCOVER which is a written guideline that confirms what was happening at WP before it was written. As recommended elsewhere if Uzma wants to change the guideline he should RfC and notify interested parties. All my other comments can be found on the talkpages pages and history of the two version of the same song, where I have used precedent, guideline and patience to explain why the two articles should be merged. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|174.252.16.238|17:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No discussion prior to filing. Disputes should be discussed extensively on talk pages before being brought to DRN. CarrieVS (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes}}

Users involved

• {{User|Favre1fan93}}
• {{User| Ryulong}}

Dispute overview

One of the title parodies a popular song but there have been repeated attempts to remove this information without explaining why. It is obviously not made up

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We tried to add details but users are persistant

How do you think we can help?

Compromise and explain why the link is not suitable

This is simple original research. The IP linked the title, "He Blasted Me with Science", to the page She Blinded Me with Science. After my revert, I noticed that this IP persisted with this change, and Ryulong continued to revert as well as explain to the IP, as noted below, that these edits are not constructive to a Wikipedia article. If anything, this info should be added to the summary section of the episode, which it currently is, with a proper citation. However, there is no citation for this trivia info, so all traces of it should not be included, unless a proper citation can be found. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The content the IP address is adding is trivia and original research, the former being discouraged and the latter being expressly forbidden. Linked episode titles are meant to direct users to articles on the episodes themselves. Not some song that someone believes that the title is a cultural reference to.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.226.4.31&oldid=540074200 twice] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.252.16.238&oldid=540104156 attempted] to inform the IP that this practice was wrong, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Power_Rangers_Megaforce_episodes&diff=540104504&oldid=537304306 began a talk page thread], but because the IP is dynamic it makes all communication impossible.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|174.252.34.34|07:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=There is no discussion and this is best taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Amadscientist (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism}}

Users involved

• {{User|C.Fred}}
• {{User| anthonyJ Lock}}
• {{User| Otherone}}
• {{User| Locke Cole}}
• {{User| Casilber}}

Dispute overview

An attempt to fix a horribly viscous pagemove of WP:Apathy is being met by resistance. Users cited have threatened anyone who tried with blocking.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to move the page back, explaining although the site is not censored the page should have a more user friendly title

How do you think we can help?

Compromise. The profanity can stay but the title is way too much

I was monitoring the recent changes page as I normally do and saw that the user in question had blanked Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and redirected it to Wikipedia:Apathy where he had copy/pasted the content from Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism I reverted both edits and warned the user, the user then proceeded to revert both edits back and his/her only reasoning was that the title was profane. This was when User:C.Fred came in and reverted both edits again. User had been warned 3 times (all by me) and asked to take his issue to WP:RM or the pages talk page as shown here User_talk:174.252.34.34. In conclusion I do not believe this article should be moved to Wikipedia:Apathy AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)