Talk:Self-determination

POV Disputation

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

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

Lead

As indicated above by User:AdeMiami as well as myself, the Lead is completely incomprehensible. The article has a very low readability score and is not written in encyclopedic style. It needs work or the Article needs to be deleted. WP:LEAD. Mugginsx (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone added a whole bunch of stuff to lead since last time I looked, material which can be briefly summarized and otherwise belongs in later sections as important detail. Looks like a lot more unnecessary and/or unsourced detail about history and specific movements also could be cut down. It comes back to me now that there was a very stubborn editor who insisted on a lot of questionable material when I first worked on this when I was new to Wikipedia. Guess I could clean it up now without allowing all the nonsense to survive. CarolMooreDC 06:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Tag - Falkland Islands

As regards the Falkland Islands tag, it is there for a very good reason.

Argentina claims that in 1833 there was an expulsion of a settled Argentine population. This is untrue, it didn't happen. It has only entered the modern lexicon following a speech at the UN in 1964 by the Argentine ambassador Ruda. Argentina uses this to claim that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right to self-determination.

Two editors have edit warred text into the article, which attempts to buttress the Argentine claim by quoting authors out of context, attributing to them a meaning the original author did not intend. The text as a result is no longer neutral but is actually attempting to portray there is historical evidence to support Argentine claims when in fact none exists. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is thoroughly sourced and can not be obscured just because you don't like it Wee. Three sources are right now in place sourcing the statement and I can produce more if necessary. Your WP:OR is not a substitute for sourced statements by historians. This issue was raised at RS/N and the reccomendation was to use the Risman book (currently one of the 3 sources used) to source the statement. Three editors agreed on this (including myself and the editor who reccommended the book) and Wee edit-warred the NPOV template after not getting his way with that section. I tried to remove the template not long ago since no other editor discussed the issue at the talk page but was immediately reverted by Wee. Now an uninvolved editor has also removed the template and Wee instantly reverted again. A third editor (Langus) reverted Wee and he reverted once again. Wee is edit-warring to keep a statement completely sourced out of WP and this is not acceptable. This issue brought us to ANI and a topic ban was proposed by an admin which I gladly accepted but Wee completely refused (just before storming off to his "retirement") I'd advice him to revise his attitude towards WP and the use of his own WP:OR and WP:SYN in his edits. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I share Wee's reasoning. Apcbg (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WCM, what those secondary sources are hinting is that your particular interpretation of "Argentine population" or "Argentine inhabitants" is not shared by every secondary source. You must accept this fact at some point. I urge you and Apcbg to read again the comments received at WP:RSN, and the instructions for template use at Template:POV. --Langus (t) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source might be reliable in some respects and not so in other. Secondary sources claiming that the Argentine settlers were removed are not reliable in that respect; do they cite any primary source (in order to be secondary), and is what they claim to quote actually present in the primary source? Apcbg (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Apcbg if you take the time to read the the comments received at WP:RSN you'll see that not only is what Wee (and now you) does WP:OR and WP:SYN but that in order to dismiss a secondary source published by a publishing house as the ones used in the section, you need a reliable source that analyzes it and dismisses it for some reason (like what happened with Lopez's book) What you attempt to do is what Wee does and what was adviced to him to stop doing if he wished to remain editing in WP (again, go read the discussion at RS/N)

If you have a valid reason as to why neither of those three sources are reliable to source the statement then please state them here for all editors to see. Otherwise I'd ask you to please self-rv so we can leave that section alone. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

1. The sentence is an example of abusing sources by quoting them out of context to infer a meaning the original author did not intend. In this case Risman is quoted out of context to imply there is some support in the historical record for the central facet of the Argentine claim that the settlement was expelled. Notably Risman actually suppports the general historical convention that only the garrison was expelled.
2. The issue is not the reliability of the source, rather that the source is being abused. The above comments demonstrate that this is clearly the issue. The replies from the two editors do not addres this point but raise irrelevant issues.
3. The discussion at WP:RSN did not mandate the use of Risman in this manner.
4. I and Apcbg are not interpreting sources, we reflect the opinions of neutral academic sources.
5. The purpose of the NPOV tag is to bring attention to other editors the nature of the issue and invite them to enter the debate. This is the correct use of a NPOV tag.
6. I note that I am simply commenting on content not editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The questionable statement “Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British.” refers to three sources. I have no access to the first two (and cannot verify if their reliability has actually been established) but would be interested to see what exactly do they have to say on the issue. As for the third one, I'm removing it as not pertaining because (1) it does not support the above statement as its quote reads "Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right." To expel Argentina and to expel the Argentine settlers are two quite different things indeed; and (2), that third source is not secondary in the first place as it refers to no primary source whatsoever; and being published in 2012 it is not primary either. Apcbg (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

First I note that the word "inhabitants" can refer indistinctively to the civilian settlers, the government authorities and the military garrison or all together. This said, the sources read:

1. Risman p. 306: "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders." (taken from the discussion at RS/N, so reliability is established) Risman mentions "inhabitants" literally.
2. Bulmer p 3.: "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833" (also taken from the discussion at RS/N). Bulmer states that "Argentina" was expelled. How is this not similar to saying "Argentine inhabitants"? How else would you phrase this sentence?
3. Escudé is a notable historian recommended at the same RS/N discussion (Apcbg: I'd urge you to read said discussion). In the article referenced he says righ after the quoted text: "With arrogance, the superpower of the time, Britain, sent a powerful frigate, took our people as prisoners, chartered them to Montevideo, lowered our imperial flag and hoisted the Union Jack." The word used in spanish by Escudé is "pobladores"; translations for this word are: people, residents, villagers, settlers and inhabitants. Once again, the source 100% backs the sentence.

This has already been at RS/N and Wee was told to stop his WP:OR and WP:SYN by two uninvolved editors. His claim that the sources do not reflect the statement is nothing but an excuse to obscure historical views he does not agree with and it is not an acceptable behavior. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If Risman, Bulmer and Escudé do not refer to specific primary sources for their statements given above, then they are not secondary sources for the present purposes. This is not dealt with, so I cannot see them established as reliable secondary sources.

What is the primary source for Risman's claim that "Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands"?

Regarding Bulmer, as already pointed out the statements 'expelled Argentina' and 'expelled the Argentine settlers' are not equivalent; 'similar' they might be, but similar means different.

As for Escudé, he has no primary source; and I also wonder if his statement actually claims that all Argentine settlers were taken prisoners, or some of them — which is not good enough. Apcbg (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Apcbg you are incurring in exactly the same behavior as Wee: WP:OR and WP:SYN. All three of them are of course secondary sources, if you you wish to disregard them as not valid then you need to go to RS/N and get consensus over there. I remind you that the Risman book was adviced as a reliable source at RS/N. Two published books and an article written by a notable historian are without a doubt valid secondary sources, you questioning their primary sources is WP:OR. If your concern is Bulmer saying "expelled Argentina" rather than "Argentine inhabitants" let me ask you: what do you infer from the statement "expelled Argentina"? Are you saying that it is not clear that it refers to its inhabitants and that it could be confused with the expelling of the whole country? Would you be more comfortable if we quoted the exact statements by Risman, Bulmer and Escudé so as to remove the problem with interpretation? I would have no problem doing so. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you have failed to address any of my points made above. Apcbg (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking a brief look at the RSN discussion, I note points where Gaba implies backing from RSN that was never suggested in the RSN discussion.

Gaba's quotes are not nearly as unequivocal as he takes them to be, and his argument that it is WP:OR to read the source in any way other than he does is singularly unconvincing. I find the argument for the status quo similarly unconvincing. I note in any case that RSN is not there to judge matters of neutrality, only of reliability, so even if Gaba's claims were all accurate, they would still not imply that the status quo is neutral.

I would suggest that the weight here is misapplied. The current text implies that the weight of opinion supports the Argentine position, which I would suggest is not an accurate or neutral representation of the sources. The NPOV tag should remain until the article is improved such as to remove the bias. Kahastok talk 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Apcbg: I did. Your attempts to disregard published sources as "not secondary sources" is WP:OR. Your attitude right now is clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Kahastok: if you have a problem with the literal interpretation of quotes then we can simply quote them in full verbatim. As for WP:WEIGHT, the current text implies no such thing. It only mentions what other historians say about the event and neither Wee nor Apcbg nor you seem to be able to come up with a valid reason to obscure such sources. As I said, I would have no problem in quoting every historian we can find commenting the event verbatim. That of course would turn this little section into an article by itself, but I can't think of a better compromise. If you or Wee or Apcbg have a better idea then please present it. You are the ones supporting the NPOV tag so present a better alternative and we can discuss it. Until then if you whish to leave the NPOV tag up there then so be it.

Regarding this claim "Taking a brief look at the RSN discussion, I note points where Gaba implies backing from RSN that was never suggested in the RSN discussion.", would you mind pointing to which points I made that are not backed by the discussion at RS/N please? Because it seems to me you are directly accusing me of lying. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim in the article supported by these three sources is Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British.

1. Risman p.300 explicitly states that the garrison was expelled. Risman actually supports the conventional academic view that the garrison but not the settlement was expelled. On p.306 he ambiguously refers to inhabitants, so to quote only one fragment of text, claiming that the reference supports the Argentine claim is utterly misleading. The source does not support the claim attributed to it.

2. Bulmer is also referring to the explusion of the garrison, as noted by the phrase established a political and military command there in 1829. Clearly Bulmer does not support the claim made, this is citation fraud pure and simple.

3. Escude is rather odd. He refers to a frigate, prisoners and a transport to Montevideo. None of which relates to the events of 1833 but seem to be a reference to the USS Lexington raid of 1831. Britain sent a Brig-sloop, HMS Clio, took no prisoners and did not transport anyone. The settlers who chose to leave, left on the ARA Sarandi.

None of these sources support the claim that is made in the article, the sources are being abused to make a claim they do not sustain. It fails WP:V. This is neither WP:OR or WP:SYN, the sources don't support the claim made. It should be removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)