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.

Falklands / Malvinas Isl.

The incorporation of these islands in the article about the self-determination seems to me to be incorrect. First: the United Nations already have been sent on the topic clarifying in that it is necessary to to proceed to a process of decolonization of the same ones. Second: there are no doubts that the population of the same ones is well-established. Third: The mention to the comment of the Prime minister David Cameron, this one clearly out of place, not only is insulting for the intelligence of the readers of the article, since clearly it is a discredit argument, almost a joke of evil taste would say, since not only he ignores the history of his own country but he invents the history of other one. It is enough to see the articles about both countries and to consult his history and they will understand my point of view. Fourth: From the point of view of the article, any group of citizens implanted by different reasons in another territory (political, economic, etc), it would ha right to claim the self-determination, for example pakistani citizens in England, moroccans in Spain, up to th:e German citizens in checoslovaquia, polonia, during the third reich, explain clearly my point? --Hernan1483 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong, and wikipedia is not censored to satisfy nationalist arguments of whatever persuasion. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He forgives, but I do not believe that you have understood me or is clearly well-read my comment. Precisely I refer to it, the article clearly presents nationalistic arguments, but the same one should not be present inside the self-determination, considering the Resolution 2065 of the year 1965: "The General Assembly, Having examined the question of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), Having in it counts the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee entrusted to examine the situation with regard to the application of the Declaration on the concession of the independence to the countries and colonial peoples relating to the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and especially the conclusions and recommendations approved by the same one relative to the above mentioned Territory, Thinking that his resolution 1514 (XV), of December 14, 1960, inspired by the longed intention of putting end to the colonialism everywhere and in all his forms, in one of which there is fitted the case of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), 1. It invites the Governments of the Argentina and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue without delay the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee entrusted to examine the situation with regard to the application of the Declaration on the concession of the independence to the countries and colonial peoples in order to find a pacific solution to the problem, having due in it counts the dispositions and the aims of the Letter of the Close Nations and of the resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly, as well as the interests of the population of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands); 2.He asks both Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly, in the twenty-first period of meetings, on the result of the negotiations. 1398a. Plenary session, on December 16, 1965."

Clearly the United Nations consider the situation of this archipelago as colonial. Then, to incorporate it into the article of self-determination, it is basically a political decision. For example, in the article Falklands Islands sovereignty disputes, the resolution of United Nations is mentioned only in 2 lines: "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."

He forgives, you do not think that the above mentioned omission answers to a nationalistic argument?--Hernan1483 (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Anything more than a couples sentences is WP:Undue. People should largely be referred to Falkland_Islands#Sovereignty_dispute. CarolMooreDC 03:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Again

[1] I'll repeat what I said at WP:NPOVN. The article is about self-determination, the obsessive demand that we include the Argentine POV that an event in 1833 is viewed as an invasion is completely misplaced. The article should be a brief precis about the role of self-determination in relation to the Falkland Islands Dispute. That particular comment is completely and utterly irrelevant. Langus has reverted to a poorly written text that repeats the phrase "Argentine POV" no less than THREE times, TWICE in one paragaph. I'd edited the article to reframe the debate, describing the differing POV from a neutral perspective, based on academic sources. Instead we have a reversion to version of text spitting out the political POV of the Argentine Government repeatedly. We don't achieve NPOV by stating the POV of either the Argentine or British Governments, we achieve it by describing the debate from a neutral perspective. The WP:BATTLE mentality that is so obsessive about inserting the Argentine POV into each and every article has to stop and I'm getting mightily fed up with all of my edits being reverted by Langus and him following me from article to article as that is clearly hounding, it stops now or I'm going to take this to WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)