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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Cabal
2007-09-11 Falkland Islands
Status	Closed
Requestor	Alex79818 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Mediator(s)	—— Eagle101^{Need help?}

1 Request details
2 What is actually going on?
3 Mediator Response

[edit] Request details

Restoration of Nootka Sound Convention reference to EN Falkland Islands WP article, History section, following indications of biased marginalization based on discussion attempts.

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

Alex79818, Justin A Kuntz, Pfainuk,

[edit] What's going on?

Justin A Kuntz challenged and removed reference to Nootka Sound Convention on 6 July 2007, claiming consensus in that the treaty was irrelevant to the history of the Falkland Islands. I reinserted, was once again deleted claiming the passage promoted Argentine POV. I reinserted and edited with more neutral language, observing no advantage to either of the disputing sides, Justin A Kuntz challenged and removed once again.

I protested to the removal in discussion, users Justin A Kuntz and Pfainuk claimed applicability of Nootka was my individual interpretation of the primary source text, with no citations per WP:V, WP:NOR, and as such, violates WP:SYN.

I responded that primary source text is acceptable per WP:PSTS, and was used in an acceptable fashion, and thus complied with WP:V. I further demonstrated my challenged statement does not conform to the synthesis explanation in WP:SYN, and is therefore not WP:OR. I further pointed out that the reasons for challenged have seemingly jumped around between relevance, synthesis, original research, no sources, etc, while only one (relevance) was claimed for the deletion.

Response received was that my material was challenged, and I must source it or expect it to be removed as OR, with no specific discussion to any of the points I made. Editors again restated they believe the passage belongs in the WP "Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands" page, with no reference in the History section of the main Falkland Islands WP article - again with no discussion.

I protested such further proof, and provided the example of Avery Island WP page listed as part of Louisiana, an island off the coast of Louisiana, being covered under the exact same language in question found in the Louisiana Purchase Treaty, with no further citation than the primary text used to identify the treaty's relevance to the island in WP. Editors responded there is no ongoing international dispute regarding Avery island, to which I re-stated the purpose of the example, irrelevant of disputes, was to demonstrate that the primary source text "and the islands adjacent" is acceptable evidence of WP:V from a primary source.

Again, editors did not respond to my points and demanded additional evidence of reliable third party citations not pushing Argentine POV, identifying Nootka as relevant to the Falkland Islands. I maintained my protest, and then presented links to ~~The Open University~~, a second private webpage, and the official information portal of the Falkland Islands, who would surely not be promoting the Argentine POV.

hockeyshooter

Please note that the link referred to here has nothing to do with the Open University. It was a personal page, part of a tribute website now hosted at falklandswar.org.uk.

The response, again, was exclusion of the information, adding that I am a relatively new user who should not be lecturing anyone, and that the discussion was a waste of everyone's time. Editors have consistently stated that mention of the Nootka treaty promotes the Argentine Sovereignty POV, while I maintain that conclusion is false and Nootka is a relevant historical event nonwithstanding any external interpretation. Editors' prior discussions have demonstrated a strong bias against the Argentine POV, instead of assuming NPOV. This continuing attitude indicates a biased presidposition to exclude the Nootka reference at all costs, without discussion, and is indicative of biased marginalization violating WP:NPOV.

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

The Nootka Sound Convention should be re-inserted in the History section of the Falkland Islands article, in language indicative of a NPOV and as close as possible to citations, as a historical document relevant to the history of the Falkland Islands.

[edit] What is actually going on?

As part of Argentina's sovereignty claim for the Falkland Islands, the Argentine Government asserts that the UK relinquished sovereignty under the Nootka Convention of 1790. I noted that on August 4th 2006 the editor Alex79818 made this edit [1]. In the text you will note the assertion:

and in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and it's adjacent islands, as part of the Nootka Convention. In addition, the Nootka Convention provided for equal British, Spanish, and US rights to fish the sorrounding waters of, as well as land on and erect temporary buildings to aid in such shing operations, in any territory south of parts already occupied by Spain - the Falkland Islands being one of them since

The edit clearly seeks to push the Argentine viewpoint on the Nootka convention. Having noticed the edit I went to the talk page suggesting it be removed as it failed WP:NPOV. After receiving no objections to the proposed edit I removed the text shortly thereafter.

Nearly a year after the first edit, on Sept 4 the editor Alex79818 returned and replaced the same edit again, virtually verbatim. [2]

On October 28, 1790, Britain became signatory party to the Nootka Convention, formally relinquishing its right to settlements in any South American territories south of parts already occupied by Spain "and adjacent islands", the Falklands clearly being one of them.

Again the editor is clearly pushing a POV in favour of the Argentine sovereignty claim. You will also note that after reverting the edit I noted my reasons in the talk page and requested that the editor discuss any proposed edits there first.

Alex79818 ignored requests to discuss the edits but instead once again made the same edit on Sept 5. [3]. Again the edits make the assertion that the British have in some way relinquished sovereignty. Again pushing POV. I again reverted the edit, once again noting my reasons in talk and referring the editor to the talk page.

Once again, ignoring the talk page, on Sept 7th Alex79818 edited the article to once again make an edit pushing a POV. [4]. Once again the edit claims that Britain relinquished sovereignty "Britain formally relinquished the right to new settlements on the Islands." However, subtly the text is changed the editor seeks to push a POV.

The next move by Alex79818 was to make a post in the talk page, in this post he makes various accusations against other editors and I of not discussing the subject in talk. That accusation seems to ring rather hollow when his first action was to comment in the section I originally started [5]. The other editors and I (Pfainuk, Narson and Dab14763 attempted to explain to Alex79818, why the edit he proposed was not acceptable - specifically his attempt to edit conflicted with WP:NPOV. In addition none of the sources he used were actually relevant to the edit he attempted to make and thus failed WP:V.

Alex79818 then attempted various techniques to justify his edit. All of his attempts to justify his edits consisted of synthesising an argument from the text of the Nootka convention itself. Editors have tried to explain to Alex79818 wiki policies related to WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. We have also attempted to explain to Alex79818 the correct response to an edit challenge, i.e. that of providing a source that satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. Rather than providing a source to justify his edit, Alex79818 demanded that editors produced a source to justify their challenge.

I would also draw attention to the attempt by Dab14763 to show how the terms in the convention may have more than one interpretation. Dab14763 provided in the talk page an example of an ICJ interpretation of the concept of an "adjacent" island. Alex79818 makes no attempt to consider this information but rather carries on with his own interpretation, again justifying POV in violation of WP:NOR.

Alex79818 has consistently refused to WP:AGF accusing several editors of bias and POV, whilst attempting to push a POV himself. Alex79818 makes this accusation of the editors involved "Clearly this is not an issue that is open to discussion to this ‘posse’, no matter how much evidence is provided, because the predisposition is to exclude any reference to Nootka at all cost."

The editor Alex79818 has a somewhat strange contribution history. Virtually his only contribution has been to push a single-minded POV edit into the Falkland Islands article.

I would draw your attention to the fact that both the editors Pfainuk [6] and Justin A Kuntz [7] have made substantial contributions to the article Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. This article mentions the Nootka Convention in relation to Argentina's sovereignty claim. These are the editors that are accused of removing "reference to Nootka at all cost"

I would also draw your attention to the article History of the Falkland Islands, which includes a timeline, which includes Nootka and notes the disputed status of its relevancy to the islands. The only reason it is included in many timelines is because Argentina includes it in its sovereignty claim. Again this is an article I've contributed to but I stand accused of removing "reference to Nootka at all cost".

Nootka itself is irrelevant to the History of the Falklands Islands, it is however mentioned on WP in connection with the Argentine sovereignty claim. Its relevance is more than adequately presented in the existing articles and has no place in the main text.

The only actions of the editors accused of a "predisposition to exclude any reference to Nootka at all cost." has been to ensure WP:NPOV and attempting to explain to an editor wiki policies. Justin A Kuntz 00:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why nothing needs changing!

Nootka convention is more than adequately presented in the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and History of the Falkland Islands. Text is NPOV, supported by citations and the actual text of the historical document is provided. What more is needed? Justin A Kuntz 00:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Pfainuk

I fully endorse Justin A Kuntz's summary of events, but I will add a few comments from my perspective on the dispute. This is not intended to be exhaustive - there's no point in repeating all of what Justin A Kuntz says - but I want to highlight the key points as I see them.

Alex79818 proposes an edit to Falkland Islands on the Nootka Conventions. Reference to the conventions was removed from that article (and only that article) per a discussion on talk in July. There was no long debate on the subject because there was no objection. The proposed edit, as noted above, gives prominence one of a great many possible interpretations of a document that is entirely ambiguous with respect to the Falklands, both in scope and with regard to earlier and later events, without, effectively, any source other than Nootka itself. Specifically, it brushes over later events that may have invalidated the conventions, depending on one's interpretation of said events, and it assumes that the islands are "adjacent" to South America, which is debatable. In doing this it implies the Argentine POV that Britain permanently gave up sovereign rights to the Falklands in 1790 and that this is still valid.

There are any number of ways which the document and later history can be interpreted which do not imply anything of the sort, and per WP:PSTS we can't interpret primary sources to our readers in this way. This is original synthesis from sources and this was explained to said user on the talk page. In practice this would not be a problem if the material was uncontroversial - if the material was not "challenged, or likely to be challenged" (WP:NOR) then it wouldn't have mattered - this is the case in his Louisiana Purchase example. But the material here was challenged explicitly on many occasions. He has since given us sources - timelines - but these do not support his interpretation of Nootka. All of this has been explained to him, most of it repeatedly.

The material is adequately explained in other articles, as noted by Justin A Kuntz, in articles where it is clearly pertinent (as part of the Argentine claim). As Justin says, check our edit histories and note that Nootka is still present in Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. He claims we want to "exclude the Nootka reference at all costs, without discussion". Starting that discussion, as Justin A Kuntz did, would be very odd in that case. As would continuing it, to explain the issues with the reference given. So would my request that Alex79818 discuss the issue. Check out Talk:Falkland_Islands#Nootka_Convention_(2) to demonstrate that all of that happened.

However, I do not believe that a true mediation is possible in this case. Per the prerequisites at WP:MEDCAB, "all parties must be willing to assume good faith". Alex79818 does not, has never, and seems unlikely to start assuming good faith from those who disagree with him. Literally from his first post to his most recent, he has accused us, lectured us on policy and demanded things from us, but he has never appeared willing to acknowledge that we have legitimate concerns - that we are working to improve Wikipedia. He just asserts that our concerns are met or that they are unimportant - and patently they are not or else we would not be here. He assumes that we are trying to mislead him on policy instead of trying to help him to understand it. On reading the talk page, you should understand that this has had the effect of raising the temperature rather.

For these reasons, I doubt that mediation can or will work here. If Alex79818 assumes that all who disagree with him are not doing so for the good of the project - as is apparent from his comments both here and on the talk page - then mediation is doomed from the start. I suggest that if they intend to truly mediate this (as opposed to giving a ruling on policy), that mediators be realistic in their expectations. Pfainuk talk 12:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator notes

[edit] Administrative notes

[edit] Discussion

Response to Justin A Kuntz's statement, "What is Actually Going On".

Justin A Kuntz’s opinion is clearly that the Argentine Government uses Nootka to assert their claims. I fundamentally disagree with that notion given that Nootka was a treaty between the UK and Spain not to re-settle the islands, signed in 1790 when the UK withdrew and Spain remained, and again in 1814 when both Spain and UK had withdrawn settlements, both parties pledging not to resettle at that time. Argentina didn’t declare independence until 1816, two years after the last renewal of the treaty, and no Argentine diplomatic documents cite Nootka as a justification for claim. Justin A Kuntz believes nonetheless that simply because Argentina mentions Nootka within the context of historical precedents relevant to the island, any such mention therefore becomes an Argentine POV.

My edit does not in any way seek to push any Argentine POV, whether real or fictitious. My passage states “in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and it's adjacent islands, as part of the Nootka Convention.” while the Falkland Islands Information Portal Website’s historical timeline states “1790 Spain and Britain sign Nootka Sound Convention in which Britain formally renounces 'all colonial ambition' in South America and adjacent islands”. My passage is verifiable by this and other sources, including the primary text, not asserting in any way that the UK relinquished its claim of sovereignty, but rather that they pledged no future settlements. Given that Spain was the only party still settled on the islands at the time of the treaty, the UK would therefore be the only other party who could establish a future settlement. Justin A Kuntz conveniently omits the fact that I clearly stated, in my last edit, that “Britain and Spain then renewed the terms of the Nootka Convention in 1814, there being no settlements on the islands at the time.” – clearly a passage not promoting the Argentine POV.

Justin A Kuntz believes the language in the primary source text is irrelevant to the Article's topic due to the text's failure to list the island by name, despite my clear example of the same exact language used in the Louisiana Purchase Treaty text applying to WP’s Avery Island article, with no such naming of the island in that treaty. The Nootka treaty describes a vast amount of territory throughout the entire western hemisphere, including several archipelagos, none specified by name but generally understood to apply based on the text's description. Justin A Kuntz seeks to present my newbie status, and the learning process involved in how to navigate through WP discussion pages, as evidence of everything from violating WP:SYN to WP:NOR, where his initial challenge dealt with only one assertion: relevance.

This editor further attempts to discredit my WP:NPOV by attempting to subject the 1790 text to clearly irrelevant standards of definition to an event occurring in the 18th century, such as the ICJ interpretation of 1969, almost two centuries after the fact. The editor also believes the amount of contributions by editors is of consequence in answering a question of fact – am I to believe that, were I to become the most substantial contributor in all of WP, I should be allowed to say that the Soviet Union landed on the moon in 1969?

No, obviously not.

Lastly, this Justin A Kuntz has constantly claimed that I’ve refused to WP:AGF, while conveniently omitting my repeated requests to attempt to find consensus in even more neutral language, as well the fact that my repeated and unanswered requests that he and others supporting the “Nootka = Argentine POV” provide evidence that supports their POV have met only with the answer that they don’t have to. Yet despite all this, in a show of WP:AGF, I even went so far as to fulfill their request for additional verifiable sources proving that Nootka was a relevant historical event (which I believed to be unwarranted), including the above-listed quotation from the Falklands information portal, in the expectation that any rational person would not believe in good faith that such a page would be supportive of a claim made by Argentina. This, in turn, met with silence.

Even if Nootka was indeed supporting an Argentine POV, the N in “NPOV” stands for “neutral”, not “no”. The point of the regulation is to ensure encyclopedic content represents “fairly and without bias all significant views”. The view that Nootka is relevant to the history of the Falkland Islands is significant enough to be referenced by both disputing parties in the conflict, and therefore merits inclusion in the article. Justin A Kuntz instead believes the proper place for such a passage is in the “Sovereignty” article, per his opinion, and/or the “History” article. Yet the Falklands Islands article is WP’s primary English-language article on the subject, requiring users to navigate through links in order to reach the other related articles. It is hard to WP:AGF when the editors in question give a strong impression that they are attempting to limit the information, by their own admission relevant to the topic, to secondary articles.

It is therefore apparent to this reader that they are engaging in biased marginalization, in clear violation of [WP:NPOV], and their actions have indicated a desire to exclude any references to Nootka in the History section of the subject’s primary WP article, and to do so at all costs – even if the insinuate the ridiculous notion that the Falklands’ own information portal is pushing an Argentine POV. I humbly request the passage be thusly restored, per my initial request above. Alex79818 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Alex79818.

I do not see the need to present a detailed response, since the editor Alex79818 has kindly provided a typical example where he synthesises a position based upon published material in violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Further he provides an example that his edits do not conform to WP:NPOV and are attempting to push an anti-British and by inference Pro-Argentina agenda "“in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain,".

His assertions that the Argentine Government does not use the Nootka convention in its sovereignty claim are simply at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately misleading. A simple Google search will show this is not the case, for example from Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands [8], specifically "En 1790, con la firma del tratado de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Gran Bretaña se comprometió a no formar ningún establecimiento en las costas tanto orientales como occidentales de América Meridional ni en las islas adyacentes ya ocupadas por España, cual era el caso de las Malvinas." (“In 1790, with the signing of the Nootka Convention, Great Britain was committed not to form an establishment in the Eastern coasts and as much western of Southern America, neither in the islands adjacent or occupied by Spain, as it was the case of the Falklands.”) His reasons for dismissing this example contained on the talk page are frankly specious.

Alex79818 also misrepresents my comments on my contribution to Wikipedia, which highlighted two major articles that I've contributed to and which contain reference to the Nootka convention. It is clear that in no way I implied that the amount of contributions carried any weight, which is the inference in his response above. In addition, he misrepresents his source on [9] claiming this supports his edit that the British had relinquished sovereignty over the islands. They do not, these sources simply repeat the facts of the convention and make no attempt to synthesise a position (as does WP articles currently). All typical examples of the argumentative and disruptive approach to other editors so far adopted by Alex79818 and again examples where he does not WP:AGF.

It is clear there has been no attempt by editors to "suppress" the relation of Nootka to the Falkland Islands (his assertions to the contrary again do not demonstrate WP:AGF), rather editors have acted to remove the editor Alex79818's attempt to use Wikipedia to push a POV related to Argentine sovereignty claims over the islands. References to Nootka were originally split out into History of the Falkland Islands and Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands simply because the main article became too big. There is no need to duplicate the information in the main article once again. Justin A Kuntz 09:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Briefly responding to the above statement by Justin A Kuntz that my passage is attempting to push an anti-British and by inference Pro-Argentina agenda, my statement

“Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain”

was clearly followed by

“and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, , and it's adjacent islands”,

while the given Falklands source states

“…in which Britain formally renounces 'all colonial ambition' in South America and adjacent islands”,

an almost verbatim representation of the source. Furthermore, in an attempt to show WP:NPOV, I voluntarily re-worded the above to include more neutral language that still closely resembles the material found in both primary and secondary source texts, to wit:

"Britain formally relinquished the right to new settlements on the Islands.".

Notice that at no point in any of my passages have I stated that Britain officially renounced its claim of sovereignty on the islands – again, I draw attention to the difference between withdrawing a claim of sovereignty, and pledging not to resettle or colonize. Neither have I ever said that my citations constitute evidence of the British relinquishing their sovereignty claim. My contention has been one and the same from the beginning of this debacle: Nootka is 1) relevant to the islands’ history 2) as demonstrated by the primary text’s own description as well as 3) secondary sources, including Falklands official pages clearly not pushing an Argentine POV, and as such 4) merits re-inclusion in the Main article.

As I previously stated, Justin A Kuntz is demonstrably taking the Argentine mention of Nootka, a literal Spanish translation of Nootka presented within the cited source as a relevant historical fact (as demonstrated by the header “Antecedentes Historicos” in the cited source) and independently characterizing such a mention as evidence of Argentina's use of Nootka for their sovereignty claim, citing no sources, and despite there being several other sections that outline a sovereignty claim, none of which mention Nootka / San Lorenzo. Further, anybody that doesn't agree with his interpretation of such mention is apparently either disingenuous or misleading - surely a great way to show WP:AGF. Clearly, as far as he is concerned, any mention of Nootka in an Argentine text is demonstrable evidence of Argentina using Nootka to bolster a sovereignty claim, and damned be the context of its mention. To be fair, I would even agree with his notation if he could at least provide some sort of citation or evidence that Argentina has clearly said “the islands are ours because of…Nootka” – thus far, his only response and that of his fellow editors, has been “we need give you nothing, this is OR / SYN / POV / the daily excuse”. Even if it were so proven, its continued exclusion does nothing to foment a NEUTRAL point of view that requires representation of ALL SIGNIFICANT VIEWS. Based on Justin A Kuntz's own arguments, it seems that any view that even remotely hints of an Argentine view, actual or perceived, is not significant and therefore any mention of Nootka in the main article is promoting an Argentine POV.

At the end of the day, Justin A Kuntz is still pushing to relegate this clearly-relevant (as established both by sources and WP interpretation of primary texts “the islands adjacent” in treaties) piece of historical information to secondary WP pages, mischaracterizing Nootka as “Argentine POV”-only data despite its clear mention and characterization by parties on both sides of the conflict as relevant historical fact. He claims there is no need to “duplicate the information”, but his actions thus far have suggested a desire to relegate this mention to anywhere other than the WP English main Falkland Islands article.

This is a relevant historical event, the cited sources on both sides say so, and it belongs in the History section of the main article. Alex79818 11:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again I do not see the need for a detailed response, since once again Alex79818 produces an example of his approach to his proposed edit, namely synthesising a position from published sources. Once again this contravenes WP:NOR and WP:SYN, none of the sources provided back up his edit. Whatever semantic games he plays, it is still clear that his edit promotes a POV. Rather than attempting to deal with the failings of his proposed edit, he resorts to abuse of other editors claiming bias and POV. He singularly fails to address the issue that the Nootka convention already has more than adequate representation. Justin A Kuntz 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is the very point, that as I previously stated, Nootka does not have adequate representation in that if it is always and solely presented within the context of an Argentine claim to sovereignty, instead of as a purely empirical historical event of relevance to the Falkland Islands, such limited representation does not conform to the representation in the cited texts (primary and secondaries on both sides of the dispute).

It is that specific characterization to which I object, to the default exclusion that this could be viewed as a relevant historical event under any circumstance other than within the context of the Argentine Sovereignty Claim, even if it is not so presented by the sources cited – all of which back up my edit in a nearly-verbatim fashion. I have addressed this issue, repeatedly, addressed in detail every single instance where a failing to my edit was leveraged (hence the need for the detailed responses), again repeatedly, and have provided additional citations as was requested of me, further demonstrating an example of WP’s subject-relevance interpretation of the exact same language in question for another article.

Yet despite all this, Justin A Kuntz continues to claim synthesis, original research, unreliable sources on my part, engaging in frivolous discussion vis a vis the meaning of the word “adjacent”, attempting to apply whatever definition suits his personal viewpoint no matter how far-fetched it seems (i.e. 20th century ICJ to 18th century treaty), etc. – not to mention the ridiculous contention that a Falklands page contains information supporting an Argentine Sovereignty POV.

What backs this up? Nothing. No sources. No quotes. No citations. No original texts. Nothing except the editor's own opinion. In the meantime, Nootka’s representation is indeed relegated to secondary pages, only within the context of Argentine claims, with no relevant historical value of its own, and no citation or evidence to support such a conclusion even after repeated requests that it be produced. This, in my opinion, is clearly indicative of an attempt to marginalize relevant information, in violation of WP:NPOV.

I suppose the next thing to come will be an attempt to define, or re-define, the word “marginalized”. That is a definition which I will leave up to the mediator.Alex79818 14:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again I don't propose to prepare a detailed response. Alex79818 has added nothing that contrdicts my earlier statements and simply continues to provide evidence to support my statements. I would however invite Alex79818 to provide a citation showing where I make "the ridiculous contention that a Falklands page contains information supporting an Argentine Sovereignty POV". If he cannot, because it does not exist, then I expect that he will apologise for his conduct.

Incidentally, I added the reference[10] he refers to in the article Falkland Islands. Once again I make the point that the reference does not support the edit Alex79818 wishes to make.

My only other comment is the claim that representation on two main WP articles is marginalising a subject is bizarre. Justin A Kuntz 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a logical fallacy that can be easily demonstrated. Clearly I do not believe Justin A Kuntz truly thinks that a Falklands site supports the Argentine POV – rather, I use the example to illustrate the editor’s staunch and continued unwillingness to revisit his unsupported conclusions even in the face of direct contradictory evidence from reputable sources.

To wit, let us examine a quote from Justin A Kuntz’s first response in the discussion page for this topic:

“Secondly the applicability of Nootka is your interpretation…So again your second point is pushing a POV”, clearly referring to the Argentina Sovereignty Claim POV.

Now let us again examine the Falklands Information Portal quote:

“FALKLANDS HISTORY TIMELINE…A Chronology of events in the history of the Falkland Islands…1790 Spain and Britain sign Nootka Sound Convention in which Britain formally renounces 'all colonial ambition' in South America and adjacent islands”.

Fast-forward all the way to this present mediation request, where Justin A Kuntz still claims,

“Nootka itself is irrelevant to the History of the Falklands Islands, it is however mentioned on WP in connection with the Argentine sovereignty claim.”,

even after I’ve repeatedly brought up this citation as proof that even the Falklands' own site presents Nootka solely as a relevant historical document, and does not do so within the strict confines of “Argentina’s Sovereignty Claim”, which Justin A Kuntz proposes to be the only acceptable relevant frame of reference (without citation, mind you). As a matter of fact, Argentina isn’t even mentioned in the Falklands entry at all!

Clearly, according to Justin A Kuntz’s logic, if “Nootka itself is irrelevant to the History of the Falklands Islands”, and any such mention of relevancy must, by his standard, only be made within the context of the Argentine Claim in order to be considered NPV, then clearly by his definitions, and by virtue of his lack of acknowledgement of the citation, his position seems to ascertain that the Falklands citation supports an Argentine POV. After all, the citation lists Nootka, but doesn't even mention Argentina! The citation, then, obviously is an Argentine POV, as is my edit, neither of which apparently merit consideration.

I would WP:AGF in that perhaps he hadn't actually read the citation - then again, he has in the past cited this very webpage himself in other discussions, and after my repeated references to it, one gets the feeling that innocence of the knowledge might, in fact, be wanton ignorance of the citation.

Finally, regarding his opinion that my claiming misrepresentation is bizarre.

The contention made is that the editor’s attitude in claiming that 1) I’m trying to turn wikipedia into a soapbox from the beginning, while

2) he is making an original challenge of relevancy yet is now rotating through different “excuses” NOR/NPOV/SYN/VER/etc in pointing out his perceived failings of my edit, followed by

3) never addressing any of my responses to his challenges, instead rotating to the next excuse in line, when he

4) clearly makes his own conclusions regarding the interpretation of the text in question, but

5) refuses to provide citations or sources in reaching such conclusions,

6) seeks definitions of the word “adjacent”, attempting to define it by clearly irrelevant modern international law, then

7) requires that I provide unnecessary additional citations to support my edit, and when they’re provided,

8) promptly ignores them(!), and finally

9) has employed actions 1-8 above in order to maintain the Nootka reference solely within the context of Argentine Sovereignty Claims, and further, limited only to secondary pages requiring further navigation from the WP main Falklands Article.

Well good faith is good faith, but there comes a point where a rational person has to say something smells funny about the way in which this is handled. All of the above give a very strong impression that the editor is approaching the subject from a pre-disposed, biased point of view, with no intent to conduct an academic discussion of the topic, or cite any references, with the ultimate goal of marginalizing the information to a page in the encyclopedia where it would be less noticeable to a reader, and presented solely within the context of his (wholly unsubstantiated) point of view.

That is biased marginalization. And it’s a very bizarre thing to do – unless, of course, you’re trying to steer the main article to exclude anything you might believe to present the Argentine POV, whether it does in reality or not.Alex79818 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Pfainuk’s comments above, he claims “The proposed edit, as noted above, gives prominence one of a great many possible interpretations of a document that is entirely ambiguous with respect to the Falklands, both in scope and with regard to earlier and later events, without, effectively, any source other than Nootka itself.”, clearly ignoring my Falkland Islands Information Portal link, stating unequivocally and without my synthesis, that in “1790 Spain and Britain sign Nootka Sound Convention in which Britain formally renounces 'all colonial ambition' in South America and adjacent islands”. The text, in and of itself, constitutes a verifiable source trusted not to support the Argentine POV, which clearly demonstrates historical applicability of Nootka to Falklands History outside of an Argentine Sovereignty Claim, as well gives a specific interpretation of the original document which is nearly verbatim to that contained in my edit. Pfainuk continues to ignore the source and indicates a biased viewpoint by continuing, “In doing this it implies the Argentine POV that Britain permanently gave up sovereign rights to the Falklands in 1790 and that this is still valid.” and “The material is adequately explained in other articles, as noted by Justin A Kuntz, in articles where it is clearly pertinent (as part of the Argentine claim).”

Pfainuk then states “There are any number of ways which the document and later history can be interpreted which do not imply anything of the sort”, yet clearly continues to ignore both the above citation as well as the other two secondary citations which I provided to document my edit’s accuracy. Pfainuk also fails to observe that none of my edits claim that Britain permanently gave up sovereignty, but rather deal with promises not to settle or colonize in the future.

Further, in stating that “Literally from his first post to his most recent, he has accused us, lectured us on policy and demanded things from us”, I would point out the same has occurred on the part of the opposing editors, claiming soapbox, synthesis, etc. I have trouble acknowledging the legitimacy of their concerns only because of an absolute refusal to provide any citation that corroborates the point of view that a Nootka reference is relevant ONLY as part of an Argentine claim.

I do believe that mediation will be effective in this case, otherwise I would not have requested it. An impartial third party would be able to review supporting documentation on either side (or mine only, as the case may be), and make an unbiased judgment based solely on the facts. If after such consideration is made, and a cogent, referenced argument can be brought forward to explain why the reference is only relevant as part of an Argentine claim and does not belong in the Main article but rather in the related articles, then I will be wholly satisfied. I am not satisfied now, as the opposing editors have refused to do so on a consistent basis.Alex79818 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have been mentioned in this (and as I am, frankly, not hugely fussed either way. If Alex can provide a source making all the claims he wishes, and other editors agree that is what it says, then he can add it in with bells on), I would say that I am in favour of the mention of Nootka but within context. Sovereignty of the Falkland islands is /not/ just about Argentina vs Britain (At least in my opinion it shouldn't be) and Nootka relates solely to the sovereignty question (That being who controls the islands), which is where it should be placed. In the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article it can be given context and thus all editors can be satisfied. As for this constant demand for proof from those challenging an assertion, and because I enjoy creating absurd extremes, if I say I have a giant pink hippo playing chess in my bath....would you simply accept such a case because you cannot provide any source stating there isn't a giant pink hippo playing chess in my bath? The honous must be on the one making the claim, and not the challenge, to provide the convincing argument. This will be the only comment I am making on this issue unless asked to by an administrator. Narson 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My replying in detail to each of Alex79818's comments would not lead a reader or potential mediator to gain greater understanding of the dispute and is not likely to lead to a solution. As such I fail to see that this would be productive. I stand by my comments made above in full, and refer readers back to them. Pfainuk talk 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I notice that no citation has been provided for the claimed quote that I made. As to his response, I really don't see much point in a rebuttal, the tortuous logic presented is damning enough. Instead I will stand by my written record here and at Talk:Falkland Islands as to my position and the history of events. I see no further benefit in continuing to contribute here and so this will be my last comment, unless of course asked to by a mediator/administrator. Justin A Kuntz 17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, no response to any of my counterpoints. Again, failure to address my secondary sources and the context therein. Again, no evidence to support their own claims of context. All of the above an excellent way for any mediator to gain a greater understanding of this dispute - one party wants to discuss and is willing to provide sources, the other wishes to engage in semantics and unfounded subjective definitions to bolster their conclusions - then claim I didn't WP:AGF.

Quick point to Narson, “Nootka relates solely to the sovereignty question (That being who controls the islands), which is where it should be placed. In the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article it can be given context and thus all editors can be satisfied.”, without completely agreeing to that determination, I would point out that Nootka has been so referenced, but only in the secondary article, and only within the context of the Argentine claim – whereas the agreement itself was between Spain and Britain.

Secondly, it is one thing for me to say “you don’t have a pink hippo playing chess in your bathtub, I won’t accept it because you cannot provide evidence in the form of a source and the burden of evidence is on YOU!”. This is a completely reasonable approach.

It is quite another thing for me, after you did provide the source, to now say “look mate, there’s no pink hippo playing chess in your bathtub. For one thing, it’s not a hippo, it’s a rhinocerous. Secondly, it’s blue, not pink. And third, it’s not playing chess, it’s playing “a game”, which could be interpreted as chess, backgammon, checkers, etc. And I won’t provide evidence to support any of what I’ve said because the burden is on YOU!”

Lastly I should point out, it has been brought to my attention that the “Falklands Information Portal” I provided is indeed not a Falklands government page, but rather a private webpage made by longtime Kelper residents. However, given that the vast majority of the island’s population opposes Argentina’s sovereignty claim, can we at least agree that it’s highly unlikely for a Kelper website to list information that bolsters such a claim? I further point to my other two secondary source citations, both UK and therefore also unlikely to support an Argentine POV. Alex79818 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator Response

As this page has gotten a bit cluttered we will do the mediation on a subpage of this page. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation, Please allow 15 to 30 minutes to type up an opening, where I will ask a few questions etc. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 10:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you all will have a look, we can get started. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object if this case was closed? Addhoc (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia Medcab closed cases