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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Once that is done, I would appreciate it if you all would state briefly in fewer then 100 or so words what the main issue is according to you that will assist me in getting a grasp of what you guys feel the dispute is (rather then what I think the dispute is). Please mind our various policies on civility, etc, in short be polite, and remember that we are probably not all from the same culture, so just try to be as respectful as possible. We are here to mediate the content issue, not any issues that anyone person has done in the duration of the debate. —— Eagle101Need help? 10:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Short statement of scope of the debate

Please keep your statement short and sweet, and please don't respond to each other, just state what you think is the issue and let everyone read over what everyone else thinks the locus of the debate is, and of course sign your message at the end. Best of luck folks. :) —— Eagle101Need help? 10:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex79818

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[edit] Justin A Kuntz

There are two issues as I see it.

1. Proposed edit fails to comply with Wiki guidelines.

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

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

[edit] Pfainuk

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

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

[edit] Locus of dispute

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

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

I would agree with the above, but add that the determination of relevance to be made should not be exclusively within the context of an Argentine Sovereignty claim, but instead, that the determination of relevance here pertains to the larger context of Nootka as a historical event and its relevance to Falkland Islands history (or lack thereof, as claimed by challenges).Alex79818 21:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we just sign below in the 1, 2, and 3 please? I'm trying to keep things very simple here. I won't be determining anything at all. Also I would like all parties to remember that brevity is a virtue ;). I did not list above how relevance will be determined, but simply a statement of what the debate is about. I find that its hard sometimes to talk about the issue if everyone does not agree on what the issue is. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
OkAlex79818 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to disagree that the problem is the relevance and importance of the Nootka Sound convention. Nootka sound convention is relevant to the Falkland Islands dispute in that Argentina claims that under Nootka Britain relinquished sovereignty rights in 1790. Hence, both Pfainuk and I have ensured that it is discussed under Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and History of the Falkland Islands. In his summary above Alex79818 has not accurately summarised the edit he proposes or its content.
The crux of the matter is that Alex79818 seeks to interpret the text to imply that that under the Nootka convention Britain in some way relinquished sovereignty. He has played semantic games with how he presents that argument but that nonetheless is what he is trying to do. I would suggest the mediator refers to [2] and reviews the diff history presented
In interpreting the text as he does he is conducting WP:OR and using published sources to synthesis an argument (in violation of WP:SYN). The fact that he is trying to push a POV in favour of Argentine claims also fails WP:NPOV. He also misrepresents what his sources say. The Argentine Government source claims that under Nootka, Britain relinquished sovereignty (but as I supplied him that source from Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and it presents the Argentine claim that is not surprising). An Argentine Government source presenting its case does not present a NPOV. The English language sources merely state the language of the Nootka convention and the date, there is no mention of the relevance to the Falkland Islands or to any British position on sovereignty. Notably one of his sources[3] has a page[4] dedicated to International Agreements relevant to the Falkland Islands and Nootka is noticeably absent. The other source is claimed to be an Open University source but I note that the original author of that page has since indicated this is a personal page and in no way related to the University. Also the author of that work has also indicated that he is aware of several errors in that page[5]. Hence, his edit fails WP:V and WP:RS.
Essentially the issue at stake here is clearly one of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Justin A Kuntz 08:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so you claim what Alex wants to add is a violation of our verifiability guidelines and policies, but what Alex wants to add is exactly what? I think we need to pin down the problem here before we can reach any sort of compromise, as it appears that not everyone is on the same page here. So, I guess we should start by having everyone make a 2-3 sentence statement (no more!) on what they feel the crux of this matter is. It seems to be over one edit or addition, but it does not look like everyone agrees on what exactly is at issue here. From what I see you are saying is that the Nootka Sound Convention implies that Britain relinquishes claims to falkland, but did not relinquish sovereignty. On the other hand Alex feels that Britain did relinquish sovereignty. If that is the case, lets all sign below agreeing to this "crux of the debate". If I'm off, please make a 2-3 sentence statement of what you feel is the crux. (lets forget sources for the moment, lets forget behavior, exactly what is under dispute, I laid what I have learned and have understood so far just before this sentence.)
Alex79818 seeks to add the Nootka convention applies to the Falkland Islands, ergo Britain relinquishes sovereignty, as claimed in the Argentine Government sovereignty claim WP:NPOV. He seeks to interpret the text to establish relevance, WP:OR, and from that synthesise a position that Britain relinquished sovereignty WP:SYN. English language sources do not establish relevancy WP:V, one is inaccurate WP:RS and the Argentine Source presents a one sided view of the claim WP:NPOV. Justin A Kuntz 10:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


My statement: I seek to add mention of the Nootka Sound Convention to the history section of the primary WP EN article on the Falkland Islands because I believe Nootka is relevant to the Falkland Islands in its own right, not exclusive to the context of the Argentine POV as my challengers state, due to the descriptive text of the primary source which is prima facie evidence of relevance as allowed per WP:PSTS.
I believe neither party to the convention relinquished its sovereignty claim to the islands in Nootka, as the primary source dealt with future settlements, not sovereignty. I do believe that when the treaty was initially signed in 1790, the only party that was present on the island was Spain - therefore Britain was the only party who could establish future settlements, and that right was ceded in 1790. But afterwards, both parties were off the island in 1814 when the treaty was re-signed, so both parties ceded the rights to future settlements on that occasion. My primary and secondary sources are from all sides of the dispute, UK/Falklands/Argentina, they all coincide in presenting Nootka as a historical event related to Falklands history irrelevant of the sovereignty claim dispute, and as such they meet - nay, guarantee, WP:NPOV. My sources are all reliable, are updated for accuracy, and meet WP:V, therefore the above is not WP:OR.
Lastly, I believe Argentina's interpretation of Nootka, whether real or as challenging editors perceive it, is irrelevant to the above because Argentina didn't exist until 1816, and was therefore not a party to the Convention, and thus the interpretation of a third party cannot be considered in answering a question of empirical fact per WP: NPOV. I know it's not two sentences but that's what I believe.


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


The challenging editors believe relevance of Nootka exists exclusively within the content of Argentina’s claim, and in that character, Nootka’s mention should be limited to the secondary articles, as-is. On the other hand, I believe that Nootka is a relevant historical event to the Falkland Islands in it’s own right, and as such, Nootka’s mention should be in the primary article.
So, question #1: Based on the arguments and citations presented by both sides, and WP policies, does the mediator believe the Nootka Sound Convention is a historical event relevant to Falklands exclusively within the context of an Argentine Sovereignty Claim as stipulated by the challengers, or can it be a relevant historical event in its own right as I have stipulated?
And, question #2: Based on the arguments and citations presented by both sides, and WP policies, does the mediator believe that any mention of Nootka should be exclusively in the primary article, or exclusively in the secondary linked articles, or in both?
I think the above encompasses all of the smaller questions which have been leveraged back and forth, including:
-Charges of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN violations, and
-Challenges to primary and secondary source interpretations under WP:PSTS, WP:V, and WP:RS.
So, I think, if the mediator can answer the above two questions and explain the answers in relation to WP policies in the bullet points above, we should be able to come up with a pretty fair and unbiased conclusion. So if we can all agree that these are the questions to be answered, please sign and let’s get on with it.
Lastly in relation to citations, I wish to point out that I've listed more in my talk page. Frankly, there are so many that I could sit here and add citations till the cows come home. It would probably be easier therefore if the mediator does a simple google search of the terms "Nootka Falklands" and judge which of these are POV or NPOV.Alex79818 05:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


  • 1 Alex79818
  • 2
  • 3

Once we all agree what the problem is, I'll propose some ideas on how to get us all towards a solution. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Ok, I think we all pretty much agree the problem is the one statement, as a result, I'd like to see you guys produce your sources, and what you think each source means. Go ahead and make each new source a bullet point, please do not comment on other sources, just provide what you think demonstrates your case. (either for or against the addition of the text). I will remind everyone again that I will not decide this dispute for you, nor will I look at behaviour issues. Anything about behaviour I will redact, we are here to discuss content. I am here to attempt to get you guys to agree to something, so lets work on finding something we can all agree to. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Lets make an effort to say things in as few words as possible, it makes communicating much easier. Brevity is a virtue.
P.S. (again) - Please try to limit yourselves to the key sources, 2 or 3 for each point of view. Thanks.
  • example.org - This shows that this is an example ;).
The primary source text citation can be found here [[6]]. As I stated before, I believe the descriptive language of the primary source text, “the islands adjacent” is prima facie evidence of applicability and is acceptable per WP:PSTS despite the fact the Falkland islands are not identified by name and the word “adjacent” is not defined. I believe this interpretation is the same used in WP for establishing Avery Island as part of the United States through primary source text “the islands adjacent” found in the Louisiana Purchase Treaty.
The following four secondary sources are all pages dealing with the history of the Falkland Islands. Note that all four sources present Nootka under the context of historical precedents, and none present Nootka in any section outlining an Argentine claim to sovereignty, as my challengers claim.
  • The first source is from the US Marine Corps Command and Staff College [[7]].
  • The second source is a UK source, an article from The Spectator magazine, “the oldest continuously published magazine in the English language” [[8]]
  • The third source is a website from the Argentine Foreign Chancellery, which contains separate sections outlining the history of the islands and the Argentine Claim: (note the Nootka reference present in the former and absent from the latter) [[9]].
  • The fourth source is a Falklands page, "Falklands Information Portal", which refers to Nootka in its timeline [[10]]
I have a ton more sources, but I believe these four prove that my citation of the primary source text meets WP:PSTS and is WP:V per my secondary sources, hence my passage is not WP:OR. I believe this also proves my passage meets WP:NPOV as I’ve listed citations from opposing sources within the ongoing sovereignty dispute and external sources, all agreeing with the context of my passage. As such, I believe the passage should be reinstated.Alex79818 03:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for a lengthy post but I think it is necessary to go into some detail.

First of all I think it is necessary to establish sources that describe the edit Alex proposes. I offer [11], [12], [13] and [14]. All of which imply that as a result of the Nootka convention, Britain in some way relinquished sovereignty over the islands to Spain. This argues a POV and thus fails NPOV

Secondly I offer the complete text of the Nootka convention itself[15]. The relevant article is ARTICLE VI

It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.

Alex argues that through the term "the islands adjacent", the convention of its own right applies to the Falkland Islands. The application of the convention to the islands is in dispute as shown by Alex's first source[16]. What Alex neglected to mention is that this source discusses the sovereignty claim indicating that while Argentina claims that the convention applies to the islands, Britain denies that it is applicable. Hence, by presenting part of the story Alex presents a case favourable to the Argentine POV and thus fails NPOV. I quote:

Argentine Claim By the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790, Britain disavowed any colonial ambitions in South America "and the islands adjacent." Argentina claims this included the Islands.

and

British Response The British insist that mutual agreements made between Spain and England during the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790 did not affect existing claims to sovereignty.

Further he has largely argued that it is common sense, that the term "adjacent" means the convention applies to the islands. The islands are 300+ miles of the coast of South America, so common sense does not immediately indicate that conclusion, since it does not align with the dictionary definition of adjacent i.e. close proximity. The issue at stake is that the term "adjacent" is not defined. As it is not defined, common sense would first re-examine the text to see if there is any indication of the intentions of the persons framing the document. Article IV requires that the British do not navigate or fish "within the distance of 10 maritime leagues from any part of the coast". One might assume that this distance was in the minds of the persons framing the documents and as 10 leagues is about 35 miles that might fall in line with the dictionary definition of "adjacent". Applying common sense one might also seek a legal precedent to ratify that conclusion, [17] is an International Court of Justice decision that "by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as "adjacent" to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other."

Further Alex cites precedent of Avery Island and the Louisiana Purchase to establish his interpretation of adjacency. Avery Island is 3 miles inland, so I would concede common sense would indicate the term "adjacent" implies applicability. On the other hand common sense would not immediately lead one to conclude that islands 300+ miles offshore is an analogous situation.

Hence, regarding the argument that Alex presents that applicability can be determined by examining the text of the Nootka convention itself.

  • common sense does not necessarily indicate the applicability of the convention
  • interpretation of the text does not indicate applicability
  • cited legal precedent would preclude Alex's interpretation.
  • Analogy of Avery Island and the Louisiana Purchase does not provide a precedent that is apposite.

However, I do not consider such an argument to be relevant to the issue at hand, since what I have actually done is original research and synthesises a position from published sources. I have done so only to illustrate that there are many possible interpretations of what is in fact an ambiguous document.

Hence, Alex's argument developed from interpretation of the original text, backed up by a dubious argument of precedent, like my counter argument fails Wiki guidelines of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Both arguments are based on original research and rely on synthesising a position from published sources. Neither argument is sustainable under wikipedia policies.

Therefore Alex's argument that examining the text of Nootka establishes a Prima facie case is not sustainable.

Alex argues further that the sources he quotes supports his conclusion.

Well examining the text of [18] in its full context, clearly shows that he is only presenting one side of the argument. Incidentally I suggest this as a neutral summary of the two positions.

Regarding this source from the Spectator magazine[19]]. What Alex has failed to mention is that the Spectator advertises itself as presenting "Guaranteed Biased Coverage”[20]. I quote:

If you're looking for a balanced, objective view, you won't find it in The Spectator. The Magazine speaks from the heart to give voice to conviction and strong opinion. Our contributors - whether from the right or left - give you their views unfiltered and at cask strength. It's brilliant stuff, brilliantly written - but not to everyone's taste.

His source is a personal opinion piece, therefore is not a reliable source.

His next source [21] is an Argentine Government website that presents the Argentina sovereignty claim, hardly a NPOV. Therein lies the problem.

His final source [22] simply mentions Nootka in a timeline – does that be itself indicate support for his position? Again missing information is that the same website has a page[23] dedicated to International Agreements related to the Falkland Islands. Nootka is noticeably absent, does that imply a lack of support for his position?

There are many timelines on the web and in print that include the Nootka convention. It is typically included because of the context of the Argentine claim. As it has never been applied by either Britain or Spain to the islands, it is not necessarily included because of historical relevance.

As to Alex's suggestion that he can supply of ton of sources supporting his argument. I don't doubt that he can, a simple google search will bring up many references. However, what Alex does not mention is that some of these sources will support the Argentine position and some will support the British position. Playing citation tennis is not going to lead to a solution, also selecting sources that support an a priori position does not establish a NPOV.

Alex's argument that it is possible to separate the sovereignty claim from the relevance of the Nootka convention and include it of its own right is fallacious. Britain maintains that Nootka is not relevant to sovereignty, whilst Argentina's sovereignty claim is based upon its relevance. Adding the edit that Alex suggests is lending support to the Argentine sovereignty claim and thus fails NPOV.

Hence, what I and other editors have done is to present the Nootka Convention in the framework of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and its historical context in the History of the Falkland Islands. Our articles present both sides in context and do not seek to argue a position in favour of either the British or Argentine sovereignty claim.

Alex further argues that we are seeking to marginalise the position of the Nootka Convention, in that the two articles are "sub-articles". Note these are linked from Falkland Islands as the main articles on those subjects. Further the history section of the article Falkland Islands is only intended to précis main events in the history.

Neither Spain nor Britain as the original signatories of the Nootka Convention have ever tried to apply it to the Falkland Islands. Hence, its relevance to be included as a major event in the islands history is not established.

Finally, I think it is relevant to mention Alex's recent post on Talk:Falkland Islands

Second, the passage "whether or not the islands were included is disputed"....by whom (other than you and other WP editors)? Have you come up with one single, reputable, verifiable source that states there is an ongoing dispute within certain circles of historians, or elsewhere in academia? By contrast, the vast majority of sources I've seen, whether they're from the UK, Argentina or the Falklands, all unequivocally list Nootka as an event historically related to the islands and relevant in its own right. At a minimum, they all coincide on that one point, that Nootka is relevant to Falklands history in its own right,

Well [24] indicates the applicability is disputed and as this is a citation of his, he is clearly aware that applicability is disputed. Alex claims that the caveat "Whether or not the islands were included is disputed." is not warranted, when clearly sources are available to indicate that it is. It is clear that the edit he proposes is seeking to promote a POV in favour of Argentina's sovereignty claim.

If I was to cite a single source to indicate a neutral interpretation of the sovereignty dispute I would cite [25]. It indicates that the applicability of Nootka is disputed and it puts it into context. I contend that the current articles Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and History of the Falkland Islands present Nootka in context of its historical relevance and are NPOV by presenting both sides of the sovereignty claims. Nootka convention of its own right is not notable enough to be included in the précis in the Falkland Islands article. Justin talk 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that as we have both stated a case, Alex waits until the moderator responds before posting again. Justin talk 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


There’s a difference between stating a case of your own, with your own sources, and attacking your opponent’s case. Justin had a chance to again do the former and instead chose the latter, therefore I am compelled to respond to the criticism leveraged upon my arguments:
First, I do not concede that my source [[26]] fails NPOV. Notice the Argentine passage, “Argentina claims this included the Islands.”. The British response, clearly, is not that Nootka’s language did not include the islands, but that “mutual agreements between Spain and England during…Nootka…did not affect existing claims to sovereignty”. In other words, Britain’s response is not “hey, these islands aren’t described by Nootka”, the response is “Nootka has nothing to do with you”. I therefore submit that source is still valid.
Secondly, even if Nootka was indeed part of Argentina’s claim, I ask again by what rule are we as editors allowed to exclude it, if the “N” in NPOV stands for NEUTRAL, not NO. All point of views must be fairly and equally represented without bias! So again, attempting to marginalize the information to a secondary article and within an exclusive context so that the British POV is featured all over the primary, with none of the Argentine POV, is bias and FAILS WP:NPOV!
Third, regarding the term “adjacent”, I ask again how can a 20th-Century ICJ definition be applied to a 18th Century Treaty? How is that NPOV?
While we’re at it, why don’t we modify the articles on the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 because they’re illegal under the US Constitution! Never mind that the constitution wasn’t law in Massachussetts until 1787. RUBBISH! Pure revisionism to promote a POV biased towards the British. The true NPOV path is to find the WP interpretation of the same primary source text from other documents enacted around the same time as the document in question, which is what I've done with the Avery Island example.
Then there’s the passage on The Spectator article. Of course this is a biased source! One would naturally expect that a UK publication such as The Spectator would be biased towards the UK point of view, in the same fashion that the Argentine Government source is biased to its own. The point of it was to show that sources on ALL SIDES OF THE DISPUTE coincide that Nootka is a relevant historical event in its own right. The source in and of itself it’s not reliable – ALL THREE, showing the SAME CONCLUSION, ARE, in that they come together to show neutrality and a common belief of applicability.
So, what are we left with here?
  • common sense does not necessarily indicate the applicability of the convention – but secondary sources, on all sides, clearly do.
  • interpretation of the text does not indicate applicability – sure, not by 20th century definitions, but by 19th-C. standards it’s A-OK.
  • cited legal precedent would preclude Alex’s interpretation – interpretation of what, that WP:NPOV means representing all POVs fairly?
  • Analogy of Avery Island and the Louisiana Purchase does not provide a precedent that is apposite – I’ll leave that up to Eagle101.
And I’ll add one bullet of my own:
  • As Justin said, “Britain maintains that Nootka is not relevant to sovereignty” – Britain NEVER maintains that Nootka is not relevant to the Falklands. And if “Argentina's sovereignty claim is based upon its relevance.”, then that point of view must be represented in the article in order to meet WP:NPOV
Lastly, I’ll add this point, in that Justin admits outright “However, I do not consider such an argument to be relevant to the issue at hand, since what I have actually done is original research and synthesises a position from published sources.”
The difference is, his position is reflected in the content of the primary article by virtue of deletion of my passage and limitation of all mention of Nootka to 1) secondary linked articles and 2) exclusively within the context of the Argentine claim.
On the other hand, I, who have indeed provided numerous sources, get represented with bupkiss and my objections are met with semantics and dismissals instead of discussions. Justin has still not provided one single source of his own to back up his claims, he only attempted to analyze mine, and poorly if I do say so myself.
What more needs be said?Alex79818 22:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not here to analyze the two sides. As such I would like both of you to attempt to find some common middle ground as you guys agreed to when you entered the mediation. Common ground can be as simple as in the article showing there is a potential dispute, and showing where. This of course depends on both of you having sources to show. As a result I would like both of you to write your own drafts, with sources. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Point 1. "I do not concede that my source [[27]] fails NPOV." I do not claim that it does. Your selective quotation from that source does. You are misrepresenting what I said. In fact I clearly state that source presents a NEUTRAL position.
Point 2. I have made no attempt to exclude mention of the Nootka convention, I do mention it in two articles as it happens. Once again you're misrepresenting my position. I've clearly presented a balanced NPOV in the articles I've edited. Claims of bias are there to obfuscate the issue. There is only one editor seeking to push a biased position here, I seek to present WP:NPOV
Point 3. What was offered is an example of WP:OR to show one of many interpretations of the convention depending on how one interprets the text. So once again you misrepresent my position. In return I would point out that you have in fact supplied nothing to support your interpretation; you merely assert it is a common sense interpretation. Finally were the case to go to arbitration at the ICJ legal precedent would most certainly be relevant.
Salem witch trials? However, you reached that tangent in relation to this dispute eludes me.
Your comment of "RUBBISH!", I would remind you that I have always remained civil, I do not think it is too much to expect it in return.
As to your other points. The Spectator article being pro-British POV? Really that it is a gross misrepresentation of an article that is decidedly anti the British position. If your argument relies on distorting what I and your sources say, then it is clearly weak. My point is that an opinion piece is not a suitable source WP:OPINION.
'but secondary sources, on all sides, clearly do - only if you select only those sources that reflect your a priori assumption
sure, not by 20th century definitions, but by 19th-C. standards it’s A-OK. ignores the fact that the text contains an indication of distance that can arguably be used to interpret what is meant by "adjacent". But again that is "original research" on both our parts.
interpretation of what, that WP:NPOV means representing all POVs fairly? does not actually reflect or in any way nullify the argument presented
I’ll leave that up to Eagle101 Happy to do the same, how an interpretation of an inland island relates to a islands 300+ miles offshore still eludes me.
Your First bullet. Actually at the moment the Falkland Islands article does not present either view and is WP:NPOV but it is presented in the main article Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Both articles do meet WP:NPOV, as I pointed out above, the edit you propose doesn't
Second Bullet. The motivation behind much of tonights posting was simply to illustrate the use of original research to synthesise a position from original sources. Which is precisely what you are doing and it runs counter to Wiki policy. You then proceed to once again misrepresent what I'm trying to do to again obfuscate the issue.
Finally, "provided numerous sources", again no you haven't, you present sources but either misrepresent what they say, select a minority opinion or a biased source in favour of your POV. "Justin has still not provided one single source of his own", [28] will do for me, I have clearly indicated I consider it neutral.
That'll be enough for now. Justin talk 23:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually for my own personal interest I'd be grateful if you could point to where this dispute about whether Avery Island was included in the Louisianna Purchase. I can't find it. Justin talk 08:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


The “Avery Island” example was put forth to illustrate that there is no dispute, despite the vagueness of the text.
It has been proposed by you that a primary source text “the islands adjacent” cannot be qualified to apply to Falklands without synthesis of the main text, due to its vagueness (no definition of the word ‘adjacent’, no actual listing of the archipelago by name), because “that’s not how wikipedia works”. If therefore this is the universal WP:NPOV standard for primary source interpretation of such text, and that same text appears in other historical documents, the same rule should apply. Well, it doesn’t – and that to me indicates a predisposition to hold this specific text in this specific historical document to your interpretation of WP standards, which in my opinion are too high and not corroborated elsewhere in WP.
Secondly, the challenge leveraged is that Nootka is not a related historical event related to the Falklands in its own right (but rather only as part of the Argentine POV), and it was said that my interpretation of the text to such conclusion is WP:SYN, and therefore I was asked to present secondary sources that reflect my interpretation.
Well I’ve done that! And not only have I presented them, but I've gone so far as to cite sources in every side of the dispute. Now it seems that you are endeavoring to discredit my sources, or my interpretation thereof, never mind the fact that they all say the exact same thing: Nootka is related to Falkland Islands history, it is mentioned as such, and none of these sources present Nootka exclusively within the context of the Argentine POV. By questioning the POV status of the UK and Falkland-based sources, you insinuate the ridiculous conclusion that they’re supporting an Argentine POV. By further proposing that a 20-century ICJ standard should be applied to an 18th century text, you propose a ludicrous revisionist POV by which WP editors should regularly interpret historical texts within the context of later definitions.
And all of this to one single end - to keep Nootka's reference where it is. The fact that you referenced it in other articles does you no credit - on the contrary, it shows a predisposition pick and choose the limitations where you want the information to be reflected. And that reflection happens to coincide with YOUR point of view, that Nootka can and should only be referenced within the context of an Argentine claim, and cannot be mentioned in the primary article as you believe it's relevance to Falklands is disputed. So, I’ve asked all along, where are YOUR sources to back up the “exclusive to ArgPOV” contention? You’ve provided none, so you pick on mine and try to synthesize your own conclusion from it. While your own conclusions, as unsupported as they are, remain reflected in WP content.
Take the one source which you believe is neutral. In explaining the British response to Argentina’s Nootka point, there’s absolutely no British insinuation that Britain disputes “whether or not the Islands were included”. In fact, quite the opposite – Britain says any treaty signed between Britain and Spain was signed between BRITAIN AND SPAIN, which is what I’ve been saying all along. In that entire secondary source, in all of its reputable and verifiable interpretations of the Nootka primary text...no, in ANY SOURCE, show me any place where it says “Britain disputes that Nootka applies to the Falklands”.
You won’t, you can't, because Britain doesn’t dispute that at all. Britain disputes that Nootka applies to Argentina’s claim – but to the islands themselves, there’s NO QUESTION that Nootka applies. All sources coincide in this, whether they’re from the UK, Argentina, USA or the Falklands, and whether they’re articles, timelines or op-ed pieces. So again, I challenge you to find one single source that indicates Britain has ever disputed Nootka’s applicability to the Falklands – and if you can’t, then show your civility and concede the points:
1) Nootka text is widely seen as incorporating Falklands, among many MANY other archipelagos in the western hemisphere, in its descriptive language, and no reputable source can be found to indicate a British dispute of Nootka’s applicability.
2) Nootka reference can therefore meet WP:NPOV if mentioned outside the context of an Argentine claim.Alex79818 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Instead of producing reams of argumentative text, could you just provide a link to where the dispute on Avery island is discussed on Wikipedia. We've pointed you to everything we rely on, you've simply asserted its relevant because of this example but then never shown it.
And actually Nootka is interpreted by different parties as relevant and irrelevant. But you only wish to present the side that argues relevance. [29] clearly shows opinion differs, semantic games with your interpretation of the text doesn't change that.
And since you won't even concede that opinion differs, I really can't see mediation ever getting anywhere because there is a decided reluctance to accept a compromise. I'm therefore asking the mediator to consider taking this to Arbcom. Justin talk 11:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I said it before and I’ll say it again: I will happily concede that opinion differs WHEN YOU PROVIDE A CITATION TO BACK UP YOUR POV. If you want to refer the matter to Arbcom then I won’t object. My citation indicates a difference of opinion as to whether Nootka applies to sovereignty vs. settlements. That’s what it says! I take nothing from the text, I add nothing to it. So, again, show me where it says otherwise.
You clearly are unwilling or unable to grasp the context of the citations in question. Further, you’ve complain that I’ve failed to WP:AGF from the start, yet it was you who from the beginning leveraged accusations of failing SYN/NPOV/V/etc. Every time I’ve responded to those accusations has met with irrelevant semantics such as ICJ. You asked for secondary sources, I gave them, and you try to find loopholes to dismiss them. You give no sources of your own. Zero. Do you think Arbcom is going to just take you at your word?? They will demand the same thing I demand: SOURCES. I’ve given them, you haven’t, and content still reflects your unsupported POV.
So please, forward the matter if you wish. Tell them about how you think “Nootka is interpreted by different parties as relevant and irrelevant” to the Falklands. I’ll have my sources, reputable and verifiable. Will you?Alex79818 23:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Avery Island citation please. Justin talk 07:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Citation for what? I've provided enough citations for now. Why don't you try coming up with some of your own?Alex79818 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Fourth request, Avery Island citation please. Justin talk 07:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you like thirteen years old or something? Quit trying to delay the conversation on a tangent. I've provided many references over time, it's past time we see something from you. Do it here or do it for Arbcom, your choice, but if you expect the article to stay the way it is, know that you WILL have to cite. Looking at your edit history it's clear there's a streak of completely or partially unsupported Anti-Argentina bias in most of your comments and edits. Rest assured if I have to initiate the Arbcom referral I will be EXTREMELY thorough and this won't be the only topic to be brought up. I've provided something like nine or ten citations already, I'll not provide a single additional citation until I see at least one ORIGINAL CITATION coming out of you.Alex79818 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Alex79818, "I submit that the Avery Island example establishes a WP standard for interpreting primary-source text language “the islands adjacent”, and that my interpretation of Nootka as per my passage conforms to that WP standard. Please provide a citation that shows this. Seventh time of asking and would you please remain civil. I'd like to look at the example you claim supports your interpretation. Justin talk 13:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, do we need to continue with this pointless circular argument. The mediator has already indicated sources are adequate and we should work on a compromise text. All I'm asking is for you to show me where this example of Avery Island came from. Justin talk 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is completely non sequitur. "I'd like to look at the example you claim supports your interpretation." WHAT INTERPRETATION????? I am giving you an EXAMPLE!! I am pointing to something and saying "here, look at that". You want me to give you a source to back up the fact that I'm pointing something out???
Look, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand! I am saying "Look over there, this other treaty has the exact same words we're arguing about in Nootka, and it was signed in the same century as Nootka. Let's see if your definition of NPOV interpretation is used for it too. Wow, that's funny, it isn't used there! As a matter of fact, here's this one island, "Island X", and it's politically considered to have been covered by that treaty by WP, even though it's not listed by name in the treaty and the word adjacent is not defined in the treaty, which you stated were necessary factors for NPOV interpretation".
Let me spell it out: it is an example meant to cast severe doubt on your impartiality on the subject. It is NOT AN INTERPRETATION, it demonstrates by example that what you believe to be necessary and key factors for WP:NPOV-intepretation of primary source text doesn't hold up, because it's not found elswhere in WP where that same "suspect" language is interpreted from another primary source text. This indicates you're attempting to hold Nootka to an unfairly-high standard of primary source text interpretation, where that same standard cannot be corroborated elsewhere in WP, and that suggests bias.Alex79818 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drafts

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

Drafts can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation/Draft-Justin-1 and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation/Draft-Alex-1. As you guys have agreed to attempt to comprimise when you entered this mediation I expect both of you to move towards each other. For now I would like both of you to make changes to the draft version that I provided, and attempt to accommodate the other point of view as well. Once we have two draft versions, we can compare the two and attempt to find a compromise. I left you both a section so you can describe your changes to the starting reference point, and why you made those changes. Please keep statements short, no more then 400 words. Good luck. —— Eagle101Need help? 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justin-1

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

  1. ^ [1] Lieutenant Commander Richard D. Chenette, USN, The Argentine Seizure of the Malvinas [Falkland] Islands: History and Diplomacy, 4 May 1987

[edit] Alex-1

My draft, incorporating draft into existing pre/post text…

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


(begin draft) In 1790, England formally entered into the Nootka Sound Convention [1] with Spain, disavowing any further colonial ambitions in South America and “the islands adjacent”.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] In 1811, Spain, too, withdrew her settlements from the island, also leaving behind a plaque asserting her claims. Britain and Spain then renewed the terms of the Nootka Convention in 1814, there being no settlements on the islands at the time. Under the last Convention's terms, Britain and Spain both relinquished the right to new settlements, while equal fishing rights were to be shared by Britain, Spain and the United States, and all three parties would retain the liberty to land and erect temporary buildings aiding in such fishing operations.[9] (end draft)

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

  1. ^ [1] Lieutenant Commander Richard D. Chenette, USN, The Argentine Seizure of the Malvinas [Falkland] Islands: History and Diplomacy, 4 May 1987


[edit] Mediation Point of Order

Hi Eagle101,

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

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

Therefore if the matter is to be referred to ArbCom, it is my opinion this should be done sooner rather than later, as later action will mean a greater and more complex review of unsupported material which could be prevented by promptly employing corrective action in the matter. Eagle101, if you believe instead that progress can be made, then I'd have no problem continuing with this forum - but I don't find it acceptable that I'm the only party coming up with citations while the other engages in sophomoric behavior, accusing me of WP violations, reaching false conclusions and not backing them up with any citations of their own. So as a mediator, I'd like to know your thoughts on going forward. Thank you.Alex79818 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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


I checked and didn't see any pending referrals. I still defer to Eagle101's opinion on how to proceed.Alex79818 12:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)