User talk:Alex79818

Nootka Convention points for MedCab

Brief: 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). In that respect, it merits mention in fact and scope in the History section of the WP Falkland Islands article, in a nonpartisan fashion, irrelevant of how other parties may interpret it insofar as the ongoing sovereignty claim dispute (UK/Argentina) is concerned. As such, purposefully excluding a NPOV passage from the Main WP EN Falklands article, or relegating such passage to a “related” secondary / tertiary WP article, based on a non-cited personal perception of how the article is used by either party to the dispute, constitutes biased marginalization of relevant information as per

.

Examination:

1. Historical Event 1.1 Parties to the convention. 1.2 Primary source text and relevant dates. 1.3 Other NPOV uses of similar primary source texts in WP. 1.4 Secondary source corroborations 1.5 NPOV Relevance to Falkland Islands history.

2. Exclusion / Removal challenges 2.1 Logical fallacy. 2.2 Definition of “Adjacent” 2.3 Relevance of fact. 2.4 Synthesis 2.5 Promotion of Argentine Point of View 2.6 Original research 2.7 Conduct of Editor

1. Historical Event

1.1 Parties to the convention.

The parties to the convention were Britain and Spain. Argentina was not in existence at the time and was therefore not a party to the convention.

1.2 Primary source text and relevant dates.

The text describes a vast amount of geographical regions of applicability throughout the entire western hemisphere, to the point where I believe it would be impractical to list every affected archipelago by name. Primary source in question reads as follows:

“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”.

A further secret article elaborates on the stipulation of Article VI on eastern and western coasts of South America, without specifically naming ‘the islands adjacent’:

“Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.”

Relevant dates: The treaty was signed in 1790, at a time when Britain had withdrawn its settlement from the Falkland Islands, while Spain’s settlement remained in place. The convention was terminated in 1795 as a result of war between Spain and Britain. Both nations later renewed the convention in 1814, neither having a settlement on the islands at this time. Argentina declared its independence in 1816.

1.3 Other NPOV uses of similar primary source texts in WP.

In the primary source text, we find mention of applicability to “the islands adjacent”. Wikipedia allows for primary sources to be used for citing content, in a limited fashion as defined by

. An example in Wikipedia where the primary source text “the islands adjacent” is applied is the WP Avery Island article, such island being described as part of the United States, it being acquired as part of the Louisiana Purchase Treaty which includes the phrase “the islands adjacent”, without specifically listing the islands by name. Like Nootka, the Louisiana Purchase treaty text describes a vast amount of territory. In the WP Avery Island article’s case, the island is generally considered to be a part of the United States by virtue of the common-sense interpretation of the primary text, and without specifically requiring a trusted secondary source requiring such a reference.

I submit that, were Avery Island to be a disputed territory with another nation, the Louisiana Purchase Treaty would still remain a relevant event in the Island’s history. While

would require both sides of such a dispute to be outlined without bias, such relevance would still apply to the island’s history based on the primary source text’s own description of the territory affected, irrelevant of what either of the disputing party believe the text implied – the same standard should therefore hold true with Nootka and the Falklands.

1.4 Secondary source corroborations.

The interpretation that Nootka describes territory that includes the Falkland Islands is verifiable by reputable secondary sources, both academic and private, which at a minimum, note the signing of the Nootka Convention as a relevant historical event.

A – The Open University, a UK source, in its timeline of Falkland-relevant historical events:

“1790 Spain and Britain sign Nootka Sound Convention in which Britain formally renounces "all colonial ambition" in S.America and adjacent islands. Spain continues to occupy Islands for next 40 years until collapse of New World empire.” [[1]]

hockeyshooter

Please note that the page referred to here has nothing to do with the Open University. It was a personal page, part of my tribute website, orignally hosted on an OU server but now hosted at falklandswar.org.uk. The references I used for my timeline are:

• Max Hastings - The Battle for the Falklands - pp385 on
• Denys Blakeweay/Channel 4 - The Falklands War - pp166

I am aware there may still be some errors in my page.

Thank you for the update, as I do want to ensure accuracy. Do you know if Max Hastings' or Denys Baleweay's texts are available online to be used as in-line citations?Alex79818 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found the first one here [[2]], to quote from the source:

"In 1790, the two nations signed the Nootka Sound Convention, by which Britain formaly renounced any colonial ambitions in South America 'and the islands adjecent'. The Falklands were not occupied as a Spanish colony for forty years, until the collapse of Spain's New World empire in the early ninteenth century".

So it seems, hockeyshooter, that your citation was entirely correct in both scope and context. Still haven't seen the one from Channel 4 though. Thank you.Alex79818 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B – The Falkland Islands Information Portal, a Falklands Island source, in its timeline of Falkland-relevant historical events:

“1790 Spain and Britain sign Nootka Sound Convention in which Britain formally renounces 'all colonial ambition' in South America and adjacent islands” [[3]]

C – The Argentine Foreign Chancellery, an Argentine source, cites the event under “Antecedentes Historicos” (historical precedents):

“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.” [[4]]

Note the above-referenced source lays out its case for the sovereignty dispute after the ‘historical precedents’ section, the content of which is exactly the same in both scope and applicability as in the UK and Falklands sources, with exception of the treaty’s name.

1.5 NPOV Relevance to Falkland Islands history.

Mention of the Nootka convention as a historical event relevant to the Falkland Islands is clearly warranted in the Falkland Islands main article as such. The interpretation of the primary source text is in keeping with Wikipedia’s interpretation of the exact same primary source text as applies to other treaties. Secondary sources indicate that all three parties (UK, Argentina, Falklands residents) to the ongoing sovereignty dispute present Nootka as a historical event relevant to the islands, and present it within that scope. The mention of Nootka, therefore, is not demonstrably joined at the hip with an Argentine claim of sovereignty, and per

should not be limited to that context only.

2. Exclusion / Removal challenges.

2.1 Logical fallacy.

It is one thing to say “X ≠ Y, and the statement X = Y constitutes

. I will not provide citations or evidence to back up my deletion edit because the burden of evidence is on you, as the editor who added the content X = Y."

The above example, in my view, coincides with Wikipedia policies warranting the deletion of content, because the challenging editor removed content that was unsupported, in consideration of empirical facts.

It is another thing to say, "X ≠ Y because X = Z, and X is already mentioned within the context of Z elsewhere in this encyclopedia. X is therefore irrelevant to Y, and the statement X = Y constitutes

, because it’s already established that X = Z, and therefore X can only be presented within the scope of Z. I will not provide citations or evidence to back up my deletion edit because the burden of evidence is on you, as the editor who added the content X = Y."

In my view, the above example does not meet Wikipedia policies, because the passage is excluded on the basis of two pre-existing conclusions, that X = Z and X's context is only limited to X's relation with Z. While X = Z might be a true statement, X = Y might also be a true statement – so in order for the deletion to conform to WP policies, the challenging editor must not only prove X = Z, but that X can only be presented within the context of Z, to the exclusion of Y.

Therefore, to say ‘X = Z and X can only be mentioned within the context of Z”, without citation or evidence of that conclusion, constitutes

.

2.2 Definition of “Adjacent”

The definition of primary source text vocabulary should be interpreted with

in mind. Therefore, if a primary source text’s interpretation is in question, it is my opinion that the definition should be determined by the sources cited, and not by irrelevant sources. The treaty in question was signed in 1790, while the deleting editors have asserted that the word “adjacent” is not applicable to the Falkland Islands in the definition found in ICJ, as ICJ is a document which dates from 1969. The primary source is interpreted in a way consistent with the same text’s interpretation elsewhere in WP, and secondary sources confirm the same interpretation is applied by both sides of the dispute – this should be enough to establish that the Falkland Islands are applicable to the Nootka Sound Convention under the phrase “the islands adjacent”.

2.3 Relevance of fact.

The original challenge to the phrase was not violation of

, but irrelevance, as denoted by Justin A Kuntz’s notation:

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

I submit for consideration that relevance of Nootka to the Falkland Islands is established by primary and secondary sources, such relevance not being exclusive to an Argentine Sovereignty claim, and being significant enough to merit mention of Nootka in the WP Falklands main page instead of being relegated to secondary or linked articles.

2.4 Synthesis

A later challenge was that my interpretation of relevance was based on synthesis of the primary text, violating

. 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 last challenge leveraged was that my edit violates

by presenting a point of view that bolsters the Argentine claim for sovereignty. I submit that this conclusion is false, as demonstrated by the fact that sources on all sides of the current sovereignty dispute mention Nootka in exactly the same historical-relevance context as the one found in my passage, which seems to be one of the few points that all sides of the dispute can agree on - except the challenging editors.

I further submit that even if Nootka was cited by Argentina as part of it’s sovereignty claim, the N in NPOV stands for “neutral”, not “no”. As such, both viewpoints must be equally represented to conform to

.

2.6 Original research

Lastly, I submit for consideration that the above NPOV challenge is based on the editors’ conclusion that Nootka is a part of the Argentine claim, and therefore its mention is appropriate exclusively within that context. The challenging editors have not provided any evidence supporting that viewpoint, even after repeated requests by me to do so. Being unverifiable, I believe that conclusion constitutes original research as defined by

.

2.7 Conduct of editor

The conduct of an editor, whether newbie or regular, is irrelevant to the matter. This is a question of fact, conduct can be perceived negatively or positively by individuals and has no consequence in the determination of whether or not a fact is true or false.Alex79818 21:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish to add to the above citations, stating that in 1790, the British signed the Nootka Sound Convention and formally renounced any colonial ambition in South America "And the islands adjacent", this being presented in relation to Falklands history in "The Battle for the Falklands", Hastings and Jenkins - WW Norton & Company, New York, 1982.Alex79818 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another citation of the above stipulation found in a "WAR IN THE MODERN ERA SEMINAR" section titled "The Argentine Seizure of the Malvinas [Falkland] Islands: History and Diplomacy" by Lt. Comm. Richard D. Chenette, US Navy, held at the US Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Quantico VA on 4 May 1987. Reference to Nootka mention within "Historical Background through 1833" as well as in the timeline at the bottom, [[5]].Alex79818 05:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source, this time in a brief by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs titled "Argentina and the Falklands/Malvinas: Could the conflict with Great Britain have been averted?", under the section called "A Troubled History", [[6]]

Another UK source claiming historical relevance of Nootka to the Falklands, www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-3-4-2.pdf.

Alex79818 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one just says it better than I ever could:

"In 1790 we agreed the Nootka Sound Convention, a document whose underlying principle (more unwelcome at the time to Spain than to Britain) undermined documentary as opposed to de facto claims to the New World. Later Britain recognised the new republic of the `United Provinces' as successor to Spain, and in 1825 signed a Treaty of Peace and Friendship without mentioning the islands, of which the republic had taken formal possession five years earlier. Only one conclusion can be drawn. After quitting, Britain had abandoned her ambitions in the Falklands. We had bigger fish to fry."

From "Time to think again" by Matthew Parries, THE SPECTATOR, April 4, 1998 [[7]].Alex79818 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to open an arbitration request? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - still working on it though so pls be patient.Alex79818 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you inviting an indef blocked sock master to participate in any discussion, other than an unblock request? RashersTierney (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am reaching out in case sockmaster is one of the many frustrated editors who've WP:AGF'd and tried to contribute to the article(s) in question and have been frustrated due to other users' actions in violation WP:GAMES. After reading his/her comments I believe those allegations hold water, though I do not condone disruptive editing. In any case it's better to have them stop any disruptive practices and come back into the arbitration process than for them to continue hopping ips infinitely.Alex79818 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question is unable to respond except by creating another sock. Can you please strike your request. RashersTierney (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is hoped that the editor in question will sign in and conform to WP policy. I fail to see why an invitation to do that be striken - when an editor believes he must disrupt because WP doesn't work, it's up to those who believe in WP to show that it DOES work, and that there's no need to disrupt, IMHO.Alex79818 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently do not understand our policy regarding sock puppetry and/or the editing restrictions imposed on indefinitely blocked accounts. RashersTierney (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do elaborate, please. I'll be happy to withdraw upon reviewing your (valid) references.Alex79818 (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MFIreland is

blocked, which is against policy. Is any of this getting through? RashersTierney (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I've been asked to comment on this. Rashers is correct: MFIreland is blocked for sockpuppeting, so an invitation to participate in discussion is implicitly asking him to sockpuppet again. I mean, I suppose he hasn't been banned per se, but from his repeated socking, it's clear that this editor does not want to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner. So why would we invite him to participate in a discussion? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well to begin with you are starting from the assumption that my post was directly aimed at that user and only that user. That is not the case. If you check the article's discussion history you will see numerous socks throughout. Some have been banned, others have not. I started this request for arbitration to give all the opportunity to work within the system, and to show the system works. If the system works, there's no need to go outside of it. So to answer your question, the invitation to participate in a discussion has value in showing that a discussion IS possible to begin with, even when dealing with individuals that engage in WP:GAME/NPOV violations. There's no need for that behavior.

Secondly, since we're all making assumptions, I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt given the nature of the allegations and issues I've raised, i.e., that certain editors are gaming the system. This would have the effect of rendering normal participation methods completely ineffective and may cause individuals to resort to such actions, out of sheer frustration though without malice. Again, goes to my first point above.

Of course this is all conjecture, the third thing - what really matters - is that you've said I don't understand the policy, yet you have not cited the policy which you don't think I understand. So unless you have a link to a WP policy that states that extending an invitation to an editor that has engaged in SPing is expressly forbidden...I'm afraid I still don't see why I should withdraw the invitation to participate within the established norms of behavior.Alex79818 (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been editing Wikipedia for a year because I formed the view there are too many idiots involved in it. Please do NOT involve me in your silly disputes. The reality is that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so as long as the Islanders wish that - so its none of your business or that of Wikipedia which exists to report things 'as they are' and not the delusional dreams of timewasters. --Gibnews (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to participate or not, as you wish. My only concern is an article free of WP:NPOV violations and I for one have had quite enough. As an editor it is indeed my business to ensure that is the case, irrelevant of my opinions. On that last item, I shall only say that I fully agree with you - yet those who oppose Argentine sovereignty should realize that islanders are now almost more British than the UK itself, and that if things in the US and UK continue as they are (economically, politically, militarily), then reality for the islanders eventually will give way to necessity.

In other words - you're a long way from England, and Argies aren't going anywhere.

Cheers.Alex79818 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...I'll retract but say your last statement is very sinister. And this has nothing to do With England but Britain - a political identity. Why is it you can't seem to judge people on their self rather than there nationality? And a small group of Islands like that can be Economical and socially independent - time will tell. Scrap historical events (Move on) and stop the silly nationalist pride, this is about individual rights and liberties. And you say you're not going anywhere, well neither are the Islanders - I don't care whose in charge as long as their rights are upheld. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how that could be perceived as sinister. Gibnews said "The reality is that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so as long as the Islanders wish that"...my response "I agree". Well perhaps it's sinister from the ARG POV but then again POV is what this is all about, isn't it. Also you should note that never did I write the word "England", as a matter of fact I used the words "British" and "UK". I can absolutely judge people based on the content of their characters and not their nationality - were I to judge you it would seem I am justified in concluding that you responded without a full understanding of what I was saying. This isn't about nationalism, and I fully agree that islanders' rights should be upheld. Nonetheless I can and very well should make a comment about geographical isolation and the changing nature of the global econo-political environment without such comment being qualified as "sinister".Alex79818 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need at all for comments such as this. As you're involved in a discussion on a contentious topic, you have a responsibility to help keep the tone of the conversation civil. Threatening other editors with ArbCom sanctions obviously doesn't contribute to this. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Nick-D, what you are saying makes no sense. My mention of ArbCom was:

"May I remind you based on the last ARBCOM proceeding that numerous editors have dirt on you mate."

That simply states other editors have in the LAST arbcom proceeding complained against WCM's behavior in agreement with my own viewpoint. I don't know what language you're reading my post in but in English, referring to past actions by other editors doesn't constitute a threat of future action.

Your warning is also non-specific. If you feel there is a particular WP policy I have violated then you may cite it. If you read the post you will know that WCM made accusations against another editor; it does not bode well for others who attempt to WP:AGF with you as an admin when your admonishments are seemingly arbitrary.

As you well know several editors feel that some regular editors on this page have a history of engaging in WP:GAME and this is something that should not be tolerated. Please know that I am and will continue to do my utmost to engage in civil discussion that above all is centered on the facts, as numerous posts of mine have attested to.

Please also know that I will endeavor, with all fervor, to identify anyone who continues to engage in both WP:GAME and WP:HA violations, and I will waste no time in initiating the appropriate enforcement actions as allowed per WP Policy, and that your warning is of the utmost concern to me and, unless you care to withdraw or rephrase it, you may with all certainty count with it remaining in the forefront of my mind in all future edits. Cheers.Alex79818 (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pfainuk talk 20:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I will respond momentarily.Alex79818 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, I don't know if you ever noticed it, but someone opened an SPI on you here. It has been declined yesterday. I thought you ought to know. It's something I would like being informed about.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that's fine by me, I have nothing to hide.Alex79818 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please shorten your appeal - short and concise appeals generally work better, and are more certain to address the points of your block. As it is, I have no interest in reading this.

a/c) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I vandalize and somebody else gets banned for it, HA! AND I CAN STILL EDIT! Wow. Alex79818 don't waste your time with these grade-A idiots.

This is EXACTLY why people say WP is a joke. Sorry u got banned.209.36.57.10 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using one of your IP sockpuppets to both abuse admins and attempt to justify another block request is pretty silly. It's rather obvious what's going on here. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]