The other ironies of mentioning the 1958 Convention include the fact that Argentina never actually ratified that convention and that even if they had, geographic proximity was not, in and of itself, considered by that convention to be grounds to claim sovereignty over an inhabited territory controlled by another state.  Otherwise Japan would be part of Russia and Malta would be part of Italy and Sri Lanka would be part of India and so on through literally dozens of examples.  It's such a bad argument legally that I was concerned when it went in that including it might appear to discredit the Argentine position.  But if it is an argument made by Argentina and her supporters then it belongs.

As a general rule, you can accept or refuse a proposal, but you may also make a counterproposal to improve the article.  It's not a flat yes or no, otherwise things would never improve.  For my part, I gave my position on the map above:

I oppose any attempt to map the countries that support one side or other, as this is very difficult to get a clear position on.  But this is not such a map.
I am indifferent to this map of the EU and its ORs and OCTs.  I have no problem with its going in, and I have no problem with its being left out. '''' talk