Talk:Events leading to the Falklands War/Archive 1

Untitled
Points 5 to 9 are not events, also such change of an article merit some discuss first (IMHO) --Jor70 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

¿South Africa severed diplomatic relations with Argentina?
That is an error. Since 1965 South Africa no longer belongs to the Commonwealth and maintained close relations with the Argentine military regime. Even providing some equipment and weapons covertly. User: Alberto, 14/10/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.158.4 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

USSR
The Soviet attitude towards the war is controversial. It would be worth noting in greater detail. All of the combatants involved were enemies of the USSR, but it seemed to be keeping tabs on it. --MacRusgail 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Life under occupation
I would suggest there are two names that are mentioned under this section. One the infamous Major Patricio Dowling of military intelligence who arrived with files on many islanders and is described as personalising the Argentine terror machine. Dowling was sent home in disgrace after mistreating several islanders. The other I would suggest is mentioned is Comodoro Carlos Bloomer Reeve who even the Islanders remember with affection and respect who was able to blunt the extremes of the military intelligence and had Major Dowling sent home in disgrace.

As currently written it doesn't reflect that whilst the Argentines largely behaved reasonably well and certain individuals (such as Bloomer Reeve) managed to demonstrate humanity in extreme circumstances, there were a number of abuses including those of Major Dowling, the internment of Islanders at Goose Green, certain individuals in Fox Bay, and the deportation of noted critics of Argentina. Justin A Kuntz 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any objections to the proposed edit? Justin A Kuntz 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Falklanders
Not sure that is an accepted term? I've always seen it written as either the Islanders or Falkland Islanders. Justin A Kuntz 09:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 13,700 articles with "Falklanders" on Google including BBC, NY Times, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian,
 * 25,000 articles with "Falkland Islanders" on Google.
 * Some of the articles use both terms and since "Falklanders" is more idiomatic, I've chosen it.--Necessary Evil 14:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well, you live and learn. Cheers.  Justin A Kuntz 14:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Was it all Thatcher's fault?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Callaghan (British PM to '79) kept a nuclear sub down near the Falklands and made sure that the Junta knew about it. Thatcher got in, decided to save a few quid, and withdrew the sub. Another sign that the Junta would have taken to mean that the UK didn't really care about the Falklands. Now, if Thatcher had kept the sub down there in the first place, none of this would of happened.

So, a huge strategic cock-up by Thatcher ends up turning her into a hero, and getting her a second election victory (despite failing economic policies and 3 million unemployed at the time).

Guess that's why she doesn't mention it. What do you all think? Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Callaghan sent a naval task force in the late '70s following rising tension with Argentina regarding the military base they'd established covertly on Thule in 1976.  In 1981, the Defence secretary decided to withdraw HMS Endurance, the ice patrol ship to "save a few quid" as you put it.  Those decisions were taken by John Nott, although as PM, the buck stopped with Maggie.  British decisions may have sent the wrong signals but ultimately the decision to invade was Argentinian alone.  Justin A Kuntz 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like - if you put your hand in a dog's mouth and it bites you, who's fault is it?

In the insurance industry they have a lovely term called "contributory negligence", so I think the choice of phrase "ultimately the decision to invade was Argentinian alone." is not quite accurate. Additional it views things from a Western perspective, without taking into account the views and beliefs of the other side.


 * On a similar note, it could be said that the British started WW2, because they didn't "have" to honour their agreements with Poland, (and, indeed, Czechoslovakia thought that agreements with them (the Czechs) were not honoured by the French, in particular, in 1938).


 * Similarly, failure to take into account the other side's reaction was one of the contributory factors to the outbreak of the Pacific War - Japan (or its military, at least) remembered the 2 previous insults (that they considered very grave) that the USA had made, and when the third came, enough was enough - at least from their point of view. But of course that is not how it is seen in the West, particularly the USA.

Can't think of the originator off hand, but it would be useful to remind oneself of the addage

History is written by the victors


 * Furthermore, Alan Kay (a "notable" American with a Wikipedia entry - Alan Curtis Kay) said in an interview some time ago that when he went to school he quickly realised that he was being told only one view of the world, and that many other views existed. This is almost certainly the case in every country, but is a problem, all the same. I believe I have a copy of the interview on VHS videotape, if anyone really wants to hear it. Bright lad, that Mr Kay - I have very great respect for him. He explained something in a lecture once (I have it on tape), and when I heard his explanation I understood. After that it was just padding out the details.

So, back to the Falklands. In order to definitively dismiss the nuclear sub question, it would be necessary to know how many subs existed and where they were at what times. The MOD is unlikely to be very forthcoming with this info (I should know, I used to work for them - even inter-unit football results were "Restricted" information !!).

Furthermore, saying the decision was John Nott's doesn't really allow for the idea of cabinet government. No doubt the Treasury told him to save a few bob, so his choice was somewhat bounded. As the PM, Mrs. T could always have overuled him, if she had felt it to be a bad decision. So by not doing so, she accepts at least equal blame.

Thus, rather that dismiss my comment out of hand, and just quote from the Wikipedia entry, it might have been better to suggest that further evidence - preferably a "verifiable" source (even if the reference is only oblique) would move things forwards.

It is not for nothing that Wikipedia has a "verifiability before truth" clause.

Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So if you leave your front door open and I steal everything you own, its your fault? Somehow I don't think that would hold up in court as a defence....


 * When Callaghan sent the sub, no-one should have known it was there. The British don't advertise the whereabouts of nuclear submarines.  Allegedly the information was leaked to the Argentine Government but they deny they ever knew that.


 * Possibly the removal of Endurance sent the wrong signal but that is already mentioned in the article. Analysing the background to some extent is WP:OR and veering into personal opinion.  Its not really writing an encyclopedia.  Justin A Kuntz 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, if I left my door open, etc. my insurance company would try to refuse to pay out. They put closing the door in the t&c's.

The courts also sometimes award damages of 1 pound over here ,too - means it it someone's fault, but the other person should have known better!

If I had some hot references, I would have already put them in. But I see, you think there might have been a sub there too - sometimes "secret" moves are advertised -it is the basis of "gunboat diplomacy" that the other side knows you are there.

I would also remind you that we have not had a very good record with our intelligence chiefs - spot the one who ISN'T working for the Russians. So perhaps some people know more than they admit, too.

My data is not currently up to Wiki standards, which is why I am putting it here rather than blundering in to the articles. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What did you intend to put in? The opening mentions the withdrawal of Endurance sending the wrong signals, the lack of military action following the occupation of Thule, the British Nationality Act of 1981.  All the things that are credited with "sending the wrong signals".  Justin A Kuntz 21:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On the nuclear sub thing - bit more of a deterrent than a supply ship, methinks. Also, I repeat, a deterrent has to be known about by the other side (or, at least, they think they know about it) - otherwise it's not a deterrent. So there would be no point sending a "secret" sub unless it was meant to be used. I think perhaps a mention of the general rundown of the Navy could be added, too - I seem to remember it being necessary to "unsell" a (mini-) carrier to Australia (?). Without a decent Navy, it is very difficult to have overseas territories (British History before, say, 1550 demonstrates this, where the main overseas conflict was in a very close country over lands historically owned by a British monarch). Of course, this would have been clear to the Argentinians. Do you think that the withdrawal of a supply ship was a contributing factor, whereas the general rundown of the Royal Navy wasn't?

On the point of whether it was Mrs. T's fault, (irrespective of your interesting views on houses being robbed), I notice that the Operation Journeyman page implies that David Owen (never liked him, myself, but he is "notable") also thinks it was her fault, and the whole thing could have been avoided if she had acted differently. Sadly no reference on the page to support this. But nice to know that a "notable" agrees with me.

Don't know whether it should be more explicit in the Falklands War page, though, or whether it should be left for the reader to stumble across if they follow the link.

What say you?

Or anyone else

Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

From the page for Southern Thule

This unwillingness to project force, plus the British Government's intention to cut back the British military presence in the Antarctic for financial reasons, led the Argentine Government to believe that they could successfully occupy and annex the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, which they attempted in April 1982, sparking the Falklands War.

Looks like someone else thinking along my lines. So, should a bit more to it than just withdrawing a supply ship. If I remember, there were 6 marines on south georgia (?) - not sure about this. I think it was 25 on the Falklands. There was at least one Argentinian living on the main island at the time -some sort of liason bod (perhaps). So the Argentinians would have known how "well" defended the islands were. 31 soldiers on a territory next to someone who wants it very badly - that sounds like criminal neglect. As an aside, I think Argentina still claims the Falklands, and I am fairly sure if you fly from there to Argentina, they don't do passport control because they like to pretend it is a domestic (rather than international) flight. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the reasons behind the Argentine military decision were more complex than that. For a start Galtieri considered democracies to be weak and incapable of making tough decisions.  There were actually no military forces on South Georgia at the time, we'd never maintained a garrison there since WWII, there was a garrison for a time after the Falklands War but that was withdrawn in 2001.  NP8901 was a 40 marine garrison, that was rotated annually(?), at the time of the invasion they'd picked the time of rotation so there was actually 80 marines available.  Some were diverted to South Georgia with Lt Mills in command to deal with  the Argentine scrap men.  There were actually 2 Argentine air force officers on the island, LADE is an airline run by the Argentine Air Force and that supplied the air link to the Falklands.


 * A garrison of that size is typical of what was known as a trip wire force. Its now a largely discredited idea (the Falklands invasion being one of the reasons) but was current military thinking at the time.


 * Yes Argentina still claims the Falklands, you can't currently fly direct to Argentina from the islands. Its not official policy but one of the the little tricks Argentine customs officers will pull on Islanders is to refuse to stamp their passport on entry, which causes more problems when they try to leave.  Its one of many petty measures that are used against the Islanders and then they wonder why the Islanders dislike Argentina.


 * I still don't quite see what you're proposing to put, since the Argentine perception that the British wouldn't respond is already in the article. Justin A Kuntz 08:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

please read the entry above that one too. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Visitors travelling from or via South America can connect with the LAN flight from Santiago, Chile, via Puerto Montt and Punta Arenas to the Falklands operating every Saturday. Once a month, usually on the second Saturday, on departing Punta Arenas, the flight calls at Rio Gallegos, Argentina. The return flight from Stanley via Rio Gallegos occurs one week later. That's what is says on the "Falkland Islands" web page. Either I've read that wrong, or that's a flight from Argentina to the Falklands and back. (operated by a Chilean airline) Just accessed it 2 minutes ago.

As I said before, the Argentinians don't stamp the passports because they consider it an internal flight. Remember what I said about points of view before.

Perhaps the Falkland Islanders don't like the Argentinians because of cultural background - they like to drive on the (technically superior) British side of the road. They are used to speaking the (extremely flexible - one of the largest vocabularies, and expanding) English language. If someone told me I would have to speak another lingo in my home country, I wouldn't be best pleased either - look at the welsh, basques etc. etc.. So, who is to blame for what you call the trip wire policy - or is that the Argentinian's fault too? Also, anyone want to comment on David Owen's remark - was it all Thatcher's fault - back to where I came in? Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Britain isn't technically a democracy anyway - it's a constitutional monarchy (with an unwritten constitution - I couldn't make it up!!) Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Apparently, your figure of 80 troops is composed of 69 marines (double strength), and 11 RN personel on a survey vessel. So, if 69 is double strength, my figure of 31, which would have been reported to Argentina before the Invasion force set out, would have been pretty close (possibly) for the standing garrison. Not bad for a 25 year memory. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 09:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The trip wire policy and blame? Well NP8901 was set up under a Labour Government (Wilson's I believe) so I guess we blame them, or the trip wire idea actually originated in NATO so perhaps we blame the NATO Secretary General.  The point I keep making but you don't seem to have picked up on it yet, is that ascribing blame is down to a personal opinion, is a certain amount of WP:OR and doesn't really fit in with Wiki guidelines.  By all means put in that British cutbacks encouraged the Argentines to believe that the British wouldn't respond, extrapolating that to ascribe individual blame is a step to far.  IMHO.


 * The LAN Chile flight now has a stop over in Argentina, you're right I'd forgotten about that. I'm aware of the passport issue, it only applies to Islanders and they consider it the Argentines buggering them around.  Some officers won't stamp it on entry, 'cos they consider it an "internal flight", then that person has problems exiting because their passports aren't stamped.  If you're interested look into it, its only one example of numerous irritating little tricks that the Argentines pull and why the Islanders describe Argentine as this big bully thats constantly on their backs.


 * The strength of NP8901 was 40 men including officers and NCO. Approx. 10 of the current party had embarked on Endurance to remove the Argentine "scrap men" from South Georgia.  To make room they'd kicked 11 hydrographers from Endurance who ended up involved in the defence of Government House.  Justin A Kuntz 09:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

1)a) The History Channel on their website say it was 69 marines and 11 RN personnel on the Endurance - are you saying they are wrong, or just misleading?

1)b) Was the unit at complement strength? That far away, any marines who had to be withdrawn may not have been replaced, assuming the unit was full strength at the start. Also politician love doing odd things for odd reasons. e.g Hitler increased the number of panzer divisions he had by only equipping each with two-thirds of it's complement of tanks - looked good on paper to say he had such a large number of divisions. Not sure if any division every reached full panzer strength, certainly most didn't. Do you have a different source? If I know yours, I can expand my knowledge (never a bad thing).

2)a) Blame - another WP page (mentioned above) says that basically it was Thatcher's fault. Do you say that the other WP page needs to be corrected?

2)b) As demonstrated, it is hard for it to be the Labour Party's fault, as they "backed it up" with military force - it was the failure to "back it up" that was the real problem, don't you think.

3)a) The Islanders can consider the Argentine behaviour to be anything they want. Unprofessional way of expressing that feeling, I would have thought, have no place here - think how I would feel if I was reading this as an Argentinian - would I feel that you are giving both sides an equal airing?

3)b) Since Argentina are a sovereign nation, are they not free to set their immigration policy pretty much as they wish?

4)a) Perhaps more mention should be made of the general run down of the fleet - I would have thought a more "encouraging" reason to the Junta than moving one little ship around.

4)b) Any news on the nuclear sub? Or will this have to wait for history to tell it's tale?

5) So you don't think the driving and language thing has anything to do with the Islanders' dislike of Argentina?

6) Did we try to sell any ships shortly before the crisis - I remember us having to "un-sell" one.

That should be enough - than I will work up a draft "edit", and then see what you all think before applying it.

Mariya Oktyabrskaya 13:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, that comes across as more than a little aggressive. I suggest you go and re-read what I'd written first.

NP8901 was at full strength a party of 40 Royal Marine Commandos including officers and NCO. As the change over happened in April, then there was co-incidentally a double strength at the time of the invasion. However, in response to the landings on South Georgia, a party of Royal Marines was detached from NP8901 and sent to South Georgia on HMS Endurance. 11 Sailors were left behind to make room for the RM, these were hydrographers and so weren't needed to keep the ship running. So at the time of the invasion there were 69 marines and 11 sailors in Stanley.

2a That page says The foreign secretary at the time David Owen later claimed that if Margaret Thatcher's government had taken similarly quick action five years later, the Argentinians would not have invaded in 1982 leading to the Falklands War.  Reporting an opinion of a notable politician is fine, expressing your own in article is I suggest somewhat different. 2b See above.

3a Well, this is a talk page not an article for starters. I see nothing wrong in what I've written, even a neutral observer would see many of the things that the Argentine Government does to assert its claims as petty and in many ways counter productive. 3b Yes, they are. The point being that certain officials take it upon themselves to abuse their position and don't actually implement Argentina's own published policy.

4a I'm not sure that would necessarily be relevant, the main thing that frightened the Argentine Navy was the threat of a nuclear sub. Which BTW were not routinely deployed in the South Atlantic. The withdrawal of Endurance sent the message the British weren't interested. To a certain extent that was the case, the Foreign Office considered the Falklands a nuisance, something to be gotten rid off. 4b I'm not immediately sure what point you're making here. If you're referring to 1976. Well on the British side the Callaghan Government allegedly deployed a sub and leaked the news to Argentina. The Argentine Government maintains they knew nothing and had no plans to invade. However, Lombardo who planned Operation Azul (later renamed Operation Rosario) indicates it was one of his primary concerns in 1982 and that Anaya's plans to invaded in the '70s had been thwarted by the deployment of a sub. So the balance of the evidence for Operation Journeyman indicates its probably true. Now in 1982, you may remember that the news of the departure of a sub (HMS Splendid) was leaked, it is credited as one of the reasons for Argentina bringing forward the operation. The story goes that the MOD were trying to repeat the success of Operation Journeyman in thwarting earlier plans but it ended up as counter-productive since the Argentines acted to invade before the sub could arrive.

5 There were many reasons the Islanders had for disliking the Argentine occupation. The mess they made of the place, the stories of soldiers defecating in people's houses, forcing them to drive on the "wrong" side, making Spanish the official language, the activities of Military Intelligence and in particular the rather sinister Major Dowling. However, it should also be noted that men like Carlos Bloomer-Reeve and Major Hussey behaved with great integrity and humanity, both are still regarded with affection by the Islanders even today.

6 We'd sold HMS Invincible to Australia in 1981 to replace HMAS Melbourne, they graciously withdrew from the sale after the war. I'm not sure its relevant. Has the Argentines waited a few months it is true that we simple couldn't have retaken the Islands. The critical ships we needed would have been sold off or scrapped. A smart commander would have waited for their adversaries capability to reduce before acting. So they were either dumb or didn't take it into account.

Feel free to made a draft edit but I suggest you read some of the guidelines first. In particular consider that Wikipedia exists to produce an encylopedia, what you're proposing sounds like an opinion piece. It maybe perhaps pertinent to do an edit and then a self-revert to show what you intend to change. Justin A Kuntz 15:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Navy states that 85 marines were involved in the defense of South Georgia and the Falklands.

Another source states that the Endurance carried 9 marines from NP9801 (in addition to its complement of 13, including one officer.), giving a total of 22 on South Georgia.

The same source gives the figure of 67 for the Falkland islands, but it is not clear if this includes Major Norman and Major Noott. Additionally, Jim Airfield (spelt quite differently in another source), an ex-Royal Marine Corporal, who had moved to the Falklands, appears to have joined them, been issued with weaponry, and fought along side them. That source agree with the figure of 2 officers and nine men from Endurance being in Stanley (i.e. 11) So the total strength of NP9801 would appear to have been 76 or 78 (depending whether the 67 listed as available to Governor Hunt included the two Majors or not (my own guess is that it would have).

The WP page on the invasion says there were 57 marines and 11 RN sailors on the Falklands, and an additional 22 sent to South Georgia. Presumably this would have been NP9801 plus the complement of 13 attached to the Endurance, implying that the "double strength" NP9801 would have had about 66 members. Another User has repeatedly stated above that there were 80 marines.

The RAF, just to muddy the waters further, states on their website that 43 men from "new" NP8901, 25 from the "old" party, and 12 sailors were on the Falklands, with 9 further marines from the "old" party being sent to south Georgia.

So, take your pick - somewhere between 57 and 70 marines (including officers) plus 11 or 12 personnel from the Endurance on Stanley. Generally seems to be 22 going to South Georgia (9 from the Naval Party + 13 attached to Endurance), giving an overall figure of 77 to 92 marines in total. Perhaps the 85 figure from the Royal Navy has not counted sme who were not involved in the fighting.

Oh, the fog of war !

So, to summarise, there seems to be some doubt over the exact number of personnel involved. Certainly it is hard to say that the Royal Navy and the RAF are not reputable sources of information.

Perhaps there will always be a variety of versions of what went on, if sources can't even agree on simple things such as how many marines there were. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 13:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Another reference. Lady Thatcher, April 14th 1982, speech to Parliament, mentions 22 marines on South Georgia.

Presumably the 13 which seem to have been attached to the survey ship. Plus 9 from the Naval Party.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Help a newbie - what time-frame constitues the Falklands War.
The title pretty much says it.

When is the start of the "Falklands War"?

- the "scrap merchants" land on South Georgia?

- the departure of the Argentine Invasion fleet from the mainland?

- the Invasion?

- the reaction (to send a fleet)?

- the actual fleet departing?

- the Bombing raid?

- the fleet arriving in the Falklands?

- some other point?

The end seems more clear, but what of the beginning

TIA Mariya Oktyabrskaya 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A simple time-line would be a good addition to the article. There is a very good example at http://falklands.info/history/82timeline.html Justin A Kuntz 19:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging in Background to the Falklands War
This is where the tags say to discuss this, so I'll start the discussion.

Background to the Falklands War was prodded by Justin A Kuntz. Leithp deprodded it this afternoon, suggesting a merge instead. I was going to edit that page and leave some comments on the prod/merge in the edit summary, but I decided commenting here made more sense, to encourage some discussion.

Aside the extra detail on the Argentine régime that the Background article goes into (mostly the Argentine economic situation that lead to the war), I think everything in that article is more accurately and more substantially covered at Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, an article which has also had a lot more scrutiny. It strikes me that there is little point in merging anything from the Background article into this aside that information. Info from the British side could be summarised from the Sovereignty article. The background article should then be a redirect, not here but to the Sovereignty article. Pfainuk talk 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggested the Background to the Falklands War article was deleted because, as far as I could see, it needed a lot of work to bring it up to scratch and it duplicated material that was more than adequately covered elsewhere. At that point it seemed somewhat of an orphan that hadn't had the scrutiny that other articles had received.  To be brutally honest I don't think a merge is worthwhile because other than a small sub-section of the article identifed by Pfainuk there is nothing to merge.  Justin A Kuntz 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I had thought that some of the article could be salvaged and would benefit this article, specifically some of the history of the disputed ownership. If it's covered better elsewhere then perhaps the merge is redundant. Leithp 12:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've performed the merge, adding some material I thought was relevant from Dirty War and Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The Background article is now a redirect, so you can go back and check - the old material is still there if people want a fuller merge. Pfainuk talk 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the prod on the Background article had expired before Leithp deprodded it (I'm not complaining about this, but remarking upon it) - and that as such I'm redirecting pages from that page to the Sovereignty page. It'll all be in my contributions if people suddenly feel this is a big mistake and that the article should be retained separately but since the prod was allowed to expire I'm not expecting them to. Pfainuk talk 13:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wording of quotation
The "Landings on South Georgia" section says:
 * Later, despite evidence that the Argentine Navy had begun to assemble troops in Puerto Belgrano, but UK Joint Intelligence Committee's Latin American group stated on March 30 that "invasion was not imminent."

It seems odd to me that he would say "was" - surely he said "invasion is not imminent". I'd change this to "invasion [was] not imminent" to make it fit the context grammatically while indicating that it's not the original wording, but I don't actually know what the original wording was, because there's no citation of its source. Can anyone fix this? Hairy Dude (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg
Image:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JKirkpatrickpbs.jpg
Image:JKirkpatrickpbs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

South Georgia
There is a wrong paragraph here, there are plenty of books and interviews where this is sourced. Constantino Davidoff workers, which were explicity authorized by UK, landed March 19 from the ARA Bahia Buen Suceso. The workers raised the Argentinian flag on their camp, the same way they did on December 1981 when they first go there with ARA Alte Irizar to check the abandoned installations. However, this second time, the British media reaction between the 20th and 23 was very important and tension go quickly high after the Foreign Office requested passports to be stamped which if accepted would  establish a precedent and was not something requested by the UK signed contract. Therefore on March 24th its was ordered to the ARA Bahia Paraiso, which was at Orcadas at the time, to land ARA party lead by Astiz (which BTW was not part of any special forces but Intelligence) to "protect" or whatever Davidoff workers. The Astiz group was originally intended to establish a station in Georgias the same way they did on Thule years before but their mission was suspended on February due the Davidoff campaign. Anaya (ARA chief of staff)'s Operacion Rosario (planned to may be late 82 or 1983) was to be executed much earlier than expected if they want to have some kind of success because after the Georgias incident the Junta suspected the British garrison would be reinforced. Points 7-8 of this article seems nothing to do with "Events leading ..." but with the War itself --Jor70 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but Astiz's party landed with the scrap workers, the scrap workers were the cover for Operation Alpha. It was the British Antarctic Survey party who reported Argentine soldiers in uniform that triggered most of the diplomatic furore.  Your own Admiral Lombardo admits that Anaya lied to him about canceling Operation Alpha and this caused the rush to invade the Falklands on April 2nd.  They were terrified the British would react the same way they did in 1976 by sending a nuclear submarine, that they knew they could not counter.  And you're also incorrect about the procedure for landing.  Davidoff knew he'd got it wrong on the 20th December 1981, he promised he would follow the

correct procedure on the return when he visited the British embassy to apologise, he promised they would visit the BAS station to get the passports stamped but they didn't. There are plenty of Argentine sources who will tell a contrary story but they are usually spouting Argentine Government propaganda. The facts are that Astiz's party embarked and landed with the scrap men, using Davidoff's party as a cover, they paraded in uniform, raised the flag and were observed by the BAS doing so, they also knew the correct procedure to follow before landing and deliberately and provocatively refused to do so, despite assurances to the contrary. They were not there to "protect" Argentine scrap workers, they were there as part of Operation Alpha to establish a presence on South Georgia. Justin talk 21:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and not special forces???? The men were part of the Tactical Divers Group, that is special forces by any stretch of the imagination.  Justin talk 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to be altered, we are talking. Yes, a 3-men BAS group were waiting on Leith the arrival of the Bahia buen Suceso (as they were told to them by the Argentine Gov). They talk with the ARA crew of the ship (military of course) but no Astiz. Grupo alfa was on Antartica March 19. Astiz was a terrorist (read ESMA) and yes there were special ops in grupo Alfa, but not him. There are no doubts that Anaya had an agenda (grupo alfa first and operacion rosario later if UK not agreed to the sovereignty issue) but all was rush due this unplanned Davidof incident   --Jor70 (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know very well who Astiz is, Astiz and a group of 15 men from the Tactical Divers Group were part of the group who landed from the Bahia buen Suceso on March 19. There are plenty of sources to back this up.  You fail to address the point I made that Admiral Lombardo was furious that Anaya lied to him and put Operation Alpha into action.  Davidoff's men were used as the cover for Operation Alpha, it was the presence of Astiz's men in uniform that kicked off the diplomatic protests.  I remember the papers of the time in the UK, it barely rated a footnote on Page 7 of the Daily Mirror in the summary of World News.  Somewhere I have a clipping it was about 2 paragraphs.  The British media hardly reacted at all to this story, it was largely a non-story in the UK at the time.  The British press did not over react as you claim.  Justin talk 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is a gap here. Capitan Niella was in charge of the group landed March 19 and refused to follow BAS orders go back to Grytviken (his orders were to stay at Leith). Following british media reaction of Day 23 (Daily Telegraph and Guardian reporting Endurance going to Georgias) Anaya, instead of following the diplomatic channels, ordered grupo alfa (onboard Bahia Paraiso) to land at Leith. --Jor70 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I refer you to my previous comment regarding Admiral Lombardo's comments that Admiral Anaya lied to him about cancelling Operation Alpha. The British media reaction was non-existent until the invasion of the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine military used Davidoff's workers as a cover to land troops on South Georgia.  The comments about the troops being there to protect the scrap workers are propaganda nothing more.  Justin talk 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assertion of Lombardo is not entiry correct, there is no way a Navy Operation Commander be "lied" about his units, I attended one of his conferences once, he was furious because Anaya suddenly changes his plans about the invasion, he knows they were not prepared for the forecoming events. Is there any prove out there actually showing Astiz on March 19 on the islands ?  When did Bahia Paraiso reach Georgias accoding your facts ? or it wasnt even there ?.  There is actually no direct conection between Davidof and grupo alfa until the British reaction. --Jor70 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not entirely correct, which means mostly correct, Argentine forces embarked with Davidoff's men. That is a fact.  Astiz and his men embarked with Davidoff's party.  Why are you denying it, there are plenty of sources to corroborate these events?  No connection between Davidoff's party and the Argentine forces?????  And they're sailing on an Argentine navy vessel at a bargain bucket rate????  There was not Britih reaction till the Falklands invasion, I lived through this.  Justin talk 23:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Im denying it because they are not the facts as I know them. And please dont call them propaganda just because are not based on british sources, let try together to find verifiable facts.  You didnt answer my question. Did or did not ARA Bahia Paraiso reach Port Leith after the March 19 events ? As your question ARA Bahia buen Suceso was part of "Transportes Navales" a military owned transport company, like was LADE airliner. Did you know that Davidoff actually tried to hire HMS Endurance first ? The British reaction started with the fake move of HMS Superb and the dispatch of HMS Fort Austin on March 26 (can you track this?) Actually 2 days before the Argentine landing force leave Puerto Belgrano. --Jor70 (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when was an Argentine Admiral a British source? These are verifiable facts, and I have answered your questions.  In point of fact you are the one who hasn't answered the questions asked of yourself, and you appear to be trying to push a POV favouring a one-sided view of events as claimed by the Argentine Government.  The facts are that the British reacted to Argentine actions, Argentina precipitated these events, you're trying to push a verion of events that excuse the actions of the Argentina Junta. I call it propaganda when you are reporting a distorted version of the facts.  Tell me how did Astiz, get there?  Answer he was on the on the same ship as the scrap workers.  They were a cover for Operation Alpha.  Tell me did it never occur to you that the Argentine Government version of events might just be a pack of lies?  These are the same people that sank HMS Invincible six times.  Justin talk 00:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such ship as HMS Fort Austin, there is an RFA Fort Austin. Fort Austin is a fleet replenishment ship it isn't a warship.  Justin talk 00:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As already said in my first post Grupo alfa arrived on Bahia Paraiso the 24th. (could they fake the ship route??). I didnt saw Lombardo denying this but I know he was contrary of Anaya idea. Also believe me I not  in favour of the Junta method.  I already read (propaganda or not) argentine stories official and not.  Do you know of any  book from the british personal really involved in the Georgias events I cant get. I mean not about the War but the March events. Will be nice to compare.   You didnt answer my questions.  Did or did not Superb (fake on 25th) and Fort Austin been dispatched on 26th ? Could these events be the cause of hurry up Operacion Rosario ?  --Jor70 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

unindent

Regarding Davidoff's party, "infiltrated on board, pretending to be scientists, were members of an Argentine naval special forces unit" Nick van der Bijl, Nine Battles to Stanley, London, Leo Cooper P.8 as reported in Lawrence Freemdman, The Official History of the Falklands Camapign: Vol I The Origins of the Falklands War

"Bahia Buen Suceso set sail for South Georgia on 11 March carrying Argentine Marines" Rowland White, Vulcan 607, London, Bantam Press, p30.

"The Argentine Navy certainly knew the rules for the islands; these were part of the navigation code" Lawrence Freedmand and Virgina Gamba-Stonehouse, Signals of War, London, Faber and Fa ber P.47. This is an Anglo-Argentine book. It also reports how the BAS reported men in uniform, the official British notices on the islands regarding landings defaced, the customs house broken into, emergency supplies looted and the men were shooting Reindeer despite them being a protected species - and being illegal to land with firearms without permission. Not to mention the fact that the ship sailed in radio silence; nobody sails in radio silence in these waters unless their intentions are not entirely peaceful. Ships report icebergs, weather reports etc.

My apologies about one thing, you were correct that Astiz did not arrive in Leith until 24th March on ARA Bahia Paraiso but his troops were actually re-inforcements, they did this while HMS Endurance's mission had been postponed to avoid a confrontation. Freedman indicates that the decision to send RFA Fort Austin to replenish HMS Endurance wasn't taken till March 29. The erroneous story reported about HMS Superb appeared on the ITN news on the 30th March. Two nuclear submarines were dispatched on March 29, HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan.

Although she sailed on March 21 HMS Endurance was ordered to hold off and didn't land Royal Marine party on South Georgia until March 31, nearly a week after Astiz's landing. A small party had been on-shore and had observed the landings of the Argentine military.

The decision to invade was taken on March 26, so it is difficult to see how these events had any material influence on the decision. If the Argentine Junta misunderstood the British intentions that does not excuse their actions. The facts are that the Argentine landing on March 19 was needlessly provocative, the British response very low key. And the British press were not hysterical about the landings on South Georgia, it barely rated a footnote in most papers. Its also completely fatuous to claim Britain ratcheted up the tension over this incident, it was used by the Argentine Junta as an excuse to invade and they were responsible for the provocative acts that raised tensions in the first place. Justin talk 10:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good morning Justin, no prob. I know about those British sources too, I was asking about someone much more specific about the Georgias events. I still have some doubius points:

--Jor70 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As Astiz and grupo alfa was still on board Bahia Paraiso on March 19 I agree that there were militaries on the Bahia Buen Suceso (their crew) I will search again my sources about Cpt Niella and his men.
 * The Endurance helicopter flew over the Port Leith Camp the 22th and saw the flag already lowered (This one particulary only get it from ARA)
 * Didnt know about the radio silence, in fact was the Argentine Gov to inform BAS about her arrival about the 18th and this was the reason their 3 men (I would really like to know their names to search first hand info about all this) were waiting at Puerto Leith and not in their base at Gritviken.
 * Indeed British media reports from 20th to 26 were not as the "Gotcha", they were perhaps as you said "footnotes" but surely different as any kind before and sufficient enough to alarm the Junta. Also we must consider the official responses already be taken between Cancilleria and Foreign Office during those dates.
 * Intelligence report of the Superb being dispatched from Gilbratar the 25th was known on the Comitee meeting of the 26th and therefore Operacion "Azul" to be ejecuted asap (between April 1/3)


 * If the Argentine Junta were worried about HMS Superb on March 26, then they had very poor intelligence, as she was moored in Gibraltar at the time. She didn't set sail till March 29.
 * The ship maintained radio silence from leaving port till she arrived.
 * I think you'll find the BAS were not waiting at Leith, the party from Bahia Buen Suceso had arrived and were offloading stores and equipment before the BAS turned up. They'd be sent to investigate as the Bahia Buen Suceso hadn't turned up as expected.
 * The military personnel on board the ship were not just the crew but also included additional military personnel using civilian scientists as a cover.
 * The media reports from 20-26 were no different, it barely registered in the UK.
 * A chopper from Endurance flying over Leith on the 22 March would be a neat trick, she didn't leave Port Stanley till the 21 March. Justin talk 15:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

yes very poor intel, but is a fact that Superb move was crucial in rushing Op Azul. Also a fact is that Astiz group was not in Georgias March 19 and arrived March 24 after diplomatic and media (the last one on the Junta view) escalation. Raising the flag was also did Dec 20, 1981 when the first group landed from Alte Irizar and no reaction was at that time. Additional military personal other than the crew is only given by British sources. The fact that Davidoff used ARA Bahia Buen Suceso because British authorities denied the use of the HMS Endurance to haul the metal away. I think all this should be mentioned --Jor70 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, I think I said Astiz arrived on 24 March, the fact remains that Davidoff's party had been infiltrated by Argentine special forces and they disembarked on March 19. These are reliable and credible sources as per WP:RS, if you're dismissing these simply because they're British then that my friend is not acceptable.  And you're also incorrect as I pointed out at least one is co-authored by an Argentine.  If they raised the flag on Dec 20, then that was completely unknown to the British, they weren't aware of the visit until after Davidoff had left; i.e. there were no British witnesses to the visit.  If you're going to amend that entry to say the Argentine Junta panicked and ordered the invasion because of British action, then I will strongly object because that does not reflect the facts that the British diplomacy sought to defuse the affair and the Argentine actions were to escalate it. Certain elements of the article may be factually incorrect but the basic facts and timeline are.  I am in the middle of preparing an article depicting the timeline of the Falklands War, so I have sources to corroborate all of the above.  Justin talk 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

of course, I not dismissing the British sources, I only said that to show a more balanced point of view there are some factually incorrect facts that that should be mentioned here, such as  (I repeat them again ... ) --Jor70 (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bahia Buen Suceso being used by Davidoff because British denied hiring of Endurance
 * Argentine special ops arriving March 24 on Bahia Paraiso after (argentine point of view) tension high
 * Again Argentine point of view: No other military than the crew disimbark March 19
 * Although, as you said, might not be the British diplomatic goal, it is well proved that Op Azul was rush to April 2 because of this escalation.


 * I dispute that your "facts" should be mentioned. The facts that you're seeking to add are favouring an Argentine POV and seem designed to imply the British were culpable and the Argentines mere victims of events.  Far from being a more balanced POV, they would skew the article.
 * - Whether the British refused to hire Endurance or not is irrelevant. Endurance was not a ship available for hire, she was a Royal Navy survey vessel.  The Royal Navy is not a commercial enterprise providing ships for hire.  If you're going to mention Bahia Buen Suceso being used then also mention that she was provided at a knock down price that was way below commercial rates.  Davidoff could have hired a commercial vessel, he chose to hire the Argentine navy ship because it was cheap - and I'm sure the navy provided it cheaply for entirely philanthropic reasons.
 * - Actions of Argentina which raised the tension, balanced against the actions of the British to defuse it. As far as the British were concerned the tensions were not that high.  Argentina took advanatage of a British pause before taking action to establish troops on the ground.
 * - The presence of Argentine military personnel on March 19 is well established, it would be more accurate to mention that Argentina denies it but as Admiral Lombardo has confirmed it and the Anglo-Argentine publication (not as you imply solely British) above confirms it also, there is more than adequate sources to rebut the denial.
 * - All actions that resulted in escalating tension were as the result of moves by Argentina, not the British Government
 * The invasion may have been moved up, using South Georgia as the excuse but the plans to invade the islands were started on January 12, long before any of this occurred. So your proposed edit does not fit the sequence of events.  Justin talk 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Justin, you continue to missed the point. Back to my original post: The Argentine position is not spec forces were MARCH 19 on ARA Bahia buen Suceso: I already explained twice what Lombardo said (can you please tell me your source ISBN or whatever). Astiz (and grupo alfa) were sent March 24 on ARA Bahia Paraiso (You see, Im never denied their existence). HMS Endurance (as ARA Transportes Navales Co) were hireable ships in 1982. You continue to be exalted against dark intentions to change to whole article when I only intended to create a consensus here of something more that just the British view of the events (which BTW, before you start again, Im not against your british sources). --Jor70 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I have provided sources to back up what I said, you have not. 2. You have not explained anywhere what Lombardo said. 3. For the third or more time of pointing this out to you - IT IS NOT JUST A BRITISH VIEW OF THE EVENTS but a NPOV version. ONE OF THE AUTHORS I QUOTED IS ARGENTINE. And I only use block capitals because of a repeated failure to acknowledge what is said to you. 4. Sources provided back up the version of events where Argentine military personnel were landed on MARCH 19, they used Davidoff's party as a cover. In return you have provided NOTHING but claims that the article is somehow biased. 5. HMS Endurance was not for hire in 1982. 6. About the only slightly incorrect version of events is that Astiz didn't land till March 24, the rest is correct. However, you're proposing an edit that claims that Britain escalated events and that cause the Argentine Junta to invade the Falkland Islands. That is unacceptable because it does not fit the facts, it reflects a biased POV to excuse the actions of the Argentine Junta. 7. I have patiently explained why the edit you're proposing is unacceptable. You are persisting in an assumption of bad faith in my reasons for doing so. That I find increasingly unacceptable. Justin talk 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You see Justin, after all this talk, the current version is FAR more accurate as IMHO I suggested in my first post   --Jor70 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which could have been done long ago, if you weren't seeking to add material that excused the actions of the Argentine Junta. Justin talk 08:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

STUFT
Justin A Kuntz summarily deleted my tabular input on the merchant ships of the task force to retake the Falklands. I shall attempt to integrate the material into British naval forces in the Falklands War. I was a bit surprised to have my contribution reverted without discussion, but I can see (belatedly) I have entered a realm of strong feelings of ownership (like the islands themselves, I suppose). It took me some time to find a more appropriate location for the STUFT data, and I suggest those who feel entitled to control changes to this article might consider adding one or more "main article" links to the articles of the forces involved. Such links might help preserve the format so carefully cultivated here. Thewellman (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all a couple of points:
 * I did not revert your edit as vandalism, had I done so I would have stated rvv
 * Allegations of ownership are bad faith in this case - I explained the reason on the edit summary
 * To re-iterate you were adding too much detail
 * Additions to Talk Pages are generally added on the bottom.
 * Adding the information to the British naval forces in the Falklands War would be an excellent addition, however, I think you'll find it may already be there. If it isn't, then clearly it would be very relevant.  Similarly adding appropriate links would also be a suitable improvement for this article, nothing to stop you doing so. It would, however, be a good idea to think carefully about which articles, as in many cases the Falklands War article is the appropriate place.
 * By way of apology I really should have added that I thought your edit was in good faith but it was simply too much detail for an overview article and such detail clearly belonged in a main article such as British naval forces in the Falklands War. Justin talk 12:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I admire the level of organization you have achieved for Falklands War articles.  As you may be aware, that organizational structure has not been uniformly embraced across all Wikipedia military history articles, and is somewhat less than transparent to newcomers.  I appreciate your recognition of the value of discussing suggested placement guidance for the next military hardware buff who puts something out of place. Thewellman (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

STUFT
Just wanna say I totally agree with Justin's decision here. The article already briefly mentions the STUFT ships. Also there's a more detailed list here, but if u wanted to expand that section i.e. add some sentences. That's be totally awesome ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow I totally did not see the above discussion lol! But just to clarify I would've reverted your edit had I seen it first mate. It's just that it's far too much information for an article about the lead up, it's also a slightly unsuitable place for it. Don't know if you know this, but your hard work hasn't been "deleted", we can easily get that text back if u wish to enter it somewhere else, so u wont have to retype it all. I know Justin's explanation seemed a bit blunt, but the "edit summary" doesn't allow for a lot of words see. message me back if u need anything, Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) ;)

Why isn't this page part of the Falklands War page?
Why isn't this page part of the Falklands War page? I am aware that it would make one long page, but that's not a reason to split it by itself... Spettro9 (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely because it would make the page far too long to be practical. The Falklands War article is itself already too long.  Justin talk 15:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cover of Newsweek
An editor removed the cover of Newsweek with the "Empire strikes back" headline. It's claimed to be a violation of WP:FU. I however disagree since the text doesn't convey the "spirit of the time" as the image + headline. I'm not convinced that it's a violation of WP:FU. Let's start a debate here. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck, although I want the image included, I have some knowledge of Wikipedia FU policy and I can't see this getting through, they're especially strict on magazine covers. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From criterion 1, WP:NFCC: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion." This standard is extremely clear. The article discusses particular text on the Newsweek cover (and no other aspect of the cover). Everything of encyclopedic importance from those four words of text is conveyed by including the text in the article. The non-free image is entirely unnecessary, and must be removed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The question: Could the subject of the most famous magazine cover of the Falklands War be conveyed in text without the Fair Use of an image of the cover? No it can't.  QED  Therefore it should not be removed.  Justin talk 09:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

British Antarctic Survey
The article repeatedly mentions BAS and says nothing about what BAS is. I came here to ask, and found it buried in a long discussion above. I added it to the article. Nick Beeson (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Split
I suggest a split in the bottom third of the article. It doesn't so much talk about the events leading up to the war, as much as it does the positions of other countries and international organizations. I think a split off of "International participation..." or something of that nature would be more appropriate.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have updated two sections, the US response and the French, both edits reflect quite recent source material and one has been reverted on the grounds that it is 'POV'. I am more than happy to further edit to reach consensus, however, the edits do reflect the gist of the material, regards. Twobells (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Edit, another revert, on the grounds that the edit was 'POV' when the edit reflected the source material which included the word 'betrayal' in the lede. However, for the sake of neutrality I have re-worded the edit to satisfy the usual US-Centric suspects, regards. Twobells (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD - You make a bold edit, its reverted, then you discuss. We don't as a rule revert to your preferred version while we discuss it.  The edit plainly doesn't reflect the source, point of fact the edit is the exact opposite of what the source said.  Your edit clearly reflects a POV slant trying to put the greatest possible spin on what he source actually said.  We don't put a spin on sources, thats WP:SYN for a start, we reflect what they say.  I don't see anything new in that WSJ article that isn't already reflected in the article. WCM email 18:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A bold edit? It's an edit to reflect the non-contenticious reliably-sourced material. I don't see why you'd assume it was WP:POV as the source material reflects that. I can understand why certain editors would want the material kept off the article, however, facts are facts as reflected by the non-contentious, reliably-sourced material. As for suggesting that it is 'pov' and WP:SYN that is your opinion and Wikipedia is interested in the non-contenticious reliably-sourced material as reflected by the citations, if you feel strongly that the edits are pov then you need to find your own source amterial that counters the opinion of the authors concerned, regards. Twobells (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The text proposed fails to reflect its source accurately and neutrally.  The second part using the Telegraph as a source also significantly spins that source - a full reading of the source gives a dramatically different impression compared with the proposed change to the article.  Oh, and the change to the title doesn't make sense, vastly overemphasises the inaccurate point being made and is in any case unencyclopædic. Kahastok talk 18:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are implying, the non-contentious, reliably-sourced material states exactly that which was added to the article, that you, an editor feel that the source material is WP:POV is neither here nor there as Wikipedia is interested in the citations not the beliefs and opinions of editors. If you feel the source material is biased then you need to research and find source material that counters that. I have tried to reflect the source material's findings to the best of my ability, making it as neutral as possible, regards.Twobells (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: this edit. Ignoring the bit at the top corrected by the editor in question.

The first point is left completely unsourced. The wording gives the impression that such a compromise was in Haig's gift, that Haig could somehow have imposed a compromise that favoured Argentina. Patently he could not and did not. What the WSJ source says is quite different. What it says is that the Haig proposals in the Shuttle Diplomacy favoured Argentina. The source then flatly contradicts the thrust of the edit by pointing out that the NSC's response was to come out in favour of Britain. This comment was originally part of a single comment by Kahastok talk 22:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC), continued below
 * Why are you referring to an edit that I myself changed? Moving on, of course, Haig was in a position to push a compromise, he was Secretary of State, yet you try to suggest that he had no authority. Also, the edit is not unsourced, if you read the article you will see that the edit reflects the source material, regards. Twobells (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The second part, re: South Georgia. It seems to me that the key point here is that Haig made this proposal to the British ambassador. The proposed text very much gives the impression that Haig was planning on stabbing the British in the back. Far from it, he actually put the proposal to the British government and then abandoned it when the British objected.

Both points are made in a paragraph currently discussing a UNSC veto made several weeks after either event. Kahastok talk 22:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, that is your opinion, not reflected by the source material, you need to find source material that counters the facts as reflected by the non-contentious reliably-sourced material, regards. Twobells (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not break up my posts in this way, it makes discussions very hard to read.


 * I'm afraid I cannot parse the sentence "if you read the article you will see that the edit reflect that as another editor in the article history states".


 * I note that I have not argued my opinions, I have argued based on the contents of the sources, which when read as a whole do not back up your edits.  If your interpretation of those sources was as uncontentious as you claim, nobody would have argued with it.   If you want my sources, I cite exactly the same ones as you did.  But I base my conclusions on the sources taken as a whole.  Your edit, I find, does not reflect them accurately. Kahastok talk 23:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that is not the case, editors cannot suggest 'contention' because they don't like the source material findings, another editor clearly accepts that my edits reflect the source material, however, you have clearly premised from an opinion of your own and not accepted the source material which I am afraid is not best Wiki policy, regards. Twobells (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Uh? I have no problem with the source material per se.  But I am not convinced - and you have not convinced me - that it's useful to this article.  There doesn't seem to be much there that adds anything.  And I do not accept that it was either neutral or an accurate representation of the source for the reasons you've been given several times now and that you have made no attempt to rebut.


 * And yes, the edit was contentious. The fact that it has been reverted by three separate editors means, pretty much by definition, it is contentious. Kahastok talk 23:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And two other editors that believed it was fine. Moving on, I have added a secondary source, Dr Carine Berberi's excellent work '30 Years After: Issues and Representations of the Falklands War' which clearly states that the British and French media believed the French were 'playing both sides', regards. Twobells (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Update; I have edited the offending 'US edit' to read: Further, the recent release of National Security Council minutes shows that indeed Haig was considering a compromise favouring the Argentinians. Haig was planning to inform the Argentinians of a secret landing by British forces to retake South Georgia that would have spelt disaster for the British. Haig's reasoning was that he wanted the U.S. to be seen as an 'honest broker' in talks between the United Kingdom and Argentina, the failure of which would be seen by the Argentinians as collusion. However, as soon as he put the plans forward to the British ambassador it was rejected out of hand. I hope that is acceptable, it directly reflects the source material but removes author opinion that Haigs actions were a 'betrayal'. Tbh, I am not really happy to remove relevant cited source material from the edit. however, to promote good faith I have conceded the article lede may look a little hostile to American eyes, regards.Twobells (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't reflect the range of comment in the source material, which you are cherry picking to reflect your own POV. I am going to tag the article for NPOV for that reason. I don't see it as a demonstration of good faith to plow on inserting contentious material. WCM email 00:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. All of the issues I identified in the previous edits remain in this one.  Nothing has been addressed, in any way.


 * I also endorse the addition of the WP:COATRACK tag on the French section. This section is about French involvement in the build-up, not French involvement in the war itself.  The maintenance team are not relevant to the build-up.  I am particularly concerned about the use of emotive quotations accusing the French of things, which add little but undermine the neutral tone of the article. Kahastok talk 09:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 'My pov'? Again an editor conflates my so-called 'editorial agenda' which according to best wiki policy reflects the non-contentious, reliably-sourced material with the authors concerned, it is their point of view not mine, surely you can see that? All I am doing is adding the material that for whatever reason a editor does not like but we are not here to edit articles according to our personal agenda's but instead do our best to reflect the source material. 'Cherry picking'?, with respect, my edits reflects word for word the source material and I'm the not only editor who thinks it, however, it seems that for reasons only known to yourself you are labelling non-contentious, reliably-sourced material as 'contentious' in order to remove the source material which is completely unacceptable. . In reference to the charge of WP:COATRACK the source material refers directly the articles subject and does not focus on an entirely different subject whatsoever, which I have to say confirms my charge that two editors are becoming increasingly desperate to revert the source material. In closing, the charge of 'pov' and 'cherry picking' seems to have been employed to facilitate the removal of the non-contentious, reliably-sourced general source material, regards. Twobells (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is your POV, you're editing along a highly nationalistic line. You're not reflecting the POV of the authors of the pieces you're referring to, you're selecting quotes to make a point.  Simply because the source you're using is none-contentious and reliably sourced does not mean the edit you construct in such a manner is NPOV.  The point is your edits DO NOT reflect the views in the source material, they reflect your own.  As Kahastok notes above you're using quotations selectively in an emotive manner that does nothing but undermine the tone of the article.
 * The purpose of adding tags is to allow other editors to comment, please do not remove them again whilst this discussion is ongoing. WCM email 19:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note, if this continues I intend to revert to this edition, whilst future discussions consider what material should be added. WCM email 19:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will, for the sake of good faith try to be patient, the edits reflect the source material, they do not reflect my opinion but the premise of the authors concerned, how can you not see that that? Or is this all some sort of method to prevent the addition of the non-contentious source material? Other editors state that my edits reflect exactly the source material, however, you seemingly cannot for reasons known only to your self. As for the suggestion the source material is 'highly nationalistic' I wouldn't say that to Dr Carine Berberi if I was you, she is considered one of the pre-eminent experts on the FW and feels very strongly about nationalism. :-) regards. Twobells (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Really. Ref this edit, the edit is dubious and problematic for the way its put together.

The article actually states:

Francois Heisbourg, who at the time was international security adviser to the French Minister of Defence, Charles Hernu, insists that his government did not know that the technical team was there. But, he says, the fact that it evidently was is inexcusable.

"It is now undeniable and... one should not belittle it. This was not what was supposed to be done. It is the sort of thing which mars what should otherwise have been picture-perfect co-operation between the two countries," he says.

But not all in the French government were in the dark about the technical team's presence in Argentina during the conflict. Pierre Lethier, former chief of staff of the DGSE - the French equivalent of Britain's foreign intelligence agency MI6 and signal intelligence headquarters GCHQ - admits that his department did know about them.

"This is what intelligence is for. You need sources. We had difficulties to penetrate the Argentinian army at that time during the Falklands conflict. So, the more helpers you have the better you are," he says.

Lethier told me that the DGSE had an informer among the members of the technical team who was able to give them some information about what the Argentinian military was doing. But he is fiercely critical of the French team for the technical help it gave.

"It's bordering on an act of treason, or disobedience to an embargo," he says. "I mean, it's clear that if the head of state in France decrees an embargo, it's an embargo. Full point."

Best you can make of that is he was aware of some things the team were allegedly doing. You write:

Whereas French government advisers of the time deny having had knowledge of the technical team's presence, Pierre Lethier, a former chief of staff in DGSE, later admitted his organisation was aware of the team's work[dubious – discuss],[35] leading to claims in both the British and French media that the French had 'played both sides'[36] with the British Defense Secretary Sir John Nott going as so far as stating, "We asked Mitterrand not to give assistance to the Argentinians. If you're asking me: 'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been."

The assertion he knew exactly what they were doing is not sustainable. In addition, the way the whole sentence is constructive is classic cherry picking. You may as well have written, and I paraphrase, "The French claim they knew nothing but they're lying bastards as this guy knew".

In addition, you've a paragraph in which you cram in a quote that is derogatory to the French, simply because you can source it, does not mean you can cherry pick it out of context and cram it in there. Your edits reflect a strong nationalistic bias and that is an anathema to wikipedia. And the above is just one example.

And you don't address the problem with your edits, you ignore the points put to you, you simply repeat the phrase "non-contentious, reliably-sourced material" as it were an answer. Newsflash: it isn't. WCM email 00:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I tapped out a similar objection for the other paragraph, but decided not to post it (yet) to avoid getting WP:TLDR, so I will summarise. The whole thing reads as though the author is trying to divine from the source an Evil American Plot that was foiled by the British Ambassador. In doing this it stretches the source beyond breaking point. Moreover, it seems to confuse the two sources that Twobells cited earlier (the WSJ and Telegraph). It is not at all clear that Twobells has realised that those two sources are discussing completely different documents and completely different proposals. Kahastok talk 10:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I am always more than happy to alter the text to reach consensus as long as the final edit reflects the source material. Moving on, you are once again making accusations founded, with respect on suspect conjecture, assuming the worse possible motivations, which I have to say lacks good faith, a behavior, which has been singly obvious to all in your dealings with me. The actual reason I added the quote was an attempt to bring the article into consensus following your statement that you believed the source material did not reflect what I had written, irrespective of the fact that other editors believed it was fair and neutral, so I thought it best to actually quote from the article directly, but oh no, you now find something wrong with that, again assuming the worst motivations. With good faith in mind, I have a faint suspicion following your edits here that you do not like what the primary,secondary and tertiary source material says and believe you have the right to remove it irrespective of the fact that, (here we go once again) the articles and books are non-contentious, reliably-sourced reference material. In reference to yet another critique, once again you are conjecturing what authors were thinking or doing, in that, 'my edit reflects a strong nationalistic bias', the problem with that argument is that we can only be guided by the source material and what is contained therein which my edits reflected. In closing, what I would like to do is ask you to write a few sentences here which you believe effectively reflects the source material and then we can all see for ourselves whether the text has reached consensus as plainly you refuse to accept my edits irrespective of the numerous good faith, re-writes I had made, best wishes. Twobells (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK fine, I did that with the French section, it covers all relevant facts without any cherry picked quotes. WCM email 13:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The so-called 'cherry picked quotes' are just quotes which editors usually include for context, that certain editors do not like what they say is irrelevant as we need to reflect the source material, not censor it according to our personal agenda's. Also, the reader can no longer put the section into context, because, for reasons known only to yourself you decided to whitewash the piece and remove any mention of the motivations which is primary to understanding the geopolitical background, regards. Twobells (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Except the quotes you added don't reflect what the source material is saying, put the section into context. speak to the motivations of the participants or add to the understanding of the geopolitical background. WCM email 14:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And FYI whenever I hear someone alleging whitewashing and censorship where NPOV is under discussion, it usually means I am on the right track. WCM email 14:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, I count four times now on this page, plus at least one on your talk page and one at WP:ANEW, you have declared that the reason editors object to your proposed changes is that they dislike your conclusions. And that doesn't count the times when you've accused editors of writing according to agendas. Each occurrence is an accusation of bad faith. It seems to me that you have no real right to complain if you feel people are not assuming your good faith, given your persistent failure to assume anyone else's good faith.

I have not yet seen as explanation as to why this particular source material has to be included in this article at all. It's question that needs to be answered. On the French aspect, there is nothing clearly relevant to this article at all - it is far from clear the fact that there was a French team in Buenos Aires was in any sense led to the Falklands War.

And the other point. If Twobells thinks this is an uncontentious reflection of the source, I wonder if he has read the source. In about five minutes of comparison between the four proposed sentences and the source, I found eight fairly major differences, where the text says or implies something that the source does not back. Some are subtle, some are blatant. Any single one of these would put me in the "oppose" camp when finding consensus. And that's without the tone of the text as a whole, which creates a narrative - as I say, it implies an Evil American Plot to sell the British down the river - which is simply not present in the source.

Now, I'm not quite sure why I'm writing this. If past form is anything to go by, the response will be another accusation of bad faith and yet another repeat of "non-contentious, reliably-sourced reference material". Would people prefer it if I stopped bothering trying to help and just said "Oppose per above unanswered arguments" at every iteration that fails to meet my concerns? I must admit I do not see that it would make a whole lot of difference to our likelihood of actually getting consensus for anything. Kahastok talk 16:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Events 'leading' to the Falklands War
With the charge that some edits do not refer to events leading to the Falklands War then perhaps we need to remove certain sections entirely as some are referring directly to post-war events, thoughts? Twobells (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Twobells makes a good point, long ago though it was. This article needs a major overhaul to get it back on track. It is generally accepted that the war began on 2 April 1982 when the Argentinians invaded the Falkland Islands. What happened after that is all part of the war, not the lead up to it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"[sic] Lami Dozo"
Why is Lami Dozo's name preceded by "[sic]"? It appears in precisely that form several times in this article, and also in the linked article.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Events leading to the Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/g82/artic/aresp004.htm#Haig
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430000000/http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm to http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism
The last paragraph of the "Argentine Intentions" is nearly WORD FOR WORD plagiarized from a book titled RAF Strike Command 1968-2007: Aircraft, Men and Action. The book was written by Kev Darling.

I admittedly do not know how to put citations into Wikipedia, but if someone else does, please look into this. We should give credit where it is due.

-Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.122.2 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Its actually plagiarism the other way round, its copied from the wiki. The article text predates 2007, the book was published in 2012. WCM email 12:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. We can trace the paragraph back to this edit (search for "original intention") to Falklands War on 5 March 2006 (this article was spun off from that one in January 2007).  It has changed a lot since then of course - this is a Wiki - but that is clearly long before that book was published.  Should we add backwardscopy? Kahastok talk 18:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit on 7th July 2019
By way of slight apology to other editors, I edited the title of a book used as a reference in the article, giving it its full name. Somehow it turned into this strange edit that looks more like vandalism or a test edit. I do not know how this happened, but I just wanted to let other editors know that the edit was not done by me, in case anyone thinks it was. I cannot see how it edit could have happened, even accidentally. Thanks to Jessicapierce for reverting it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Problem solved thanks to gadfium. I was looking back at earlier edits and must have made my change on one of those, thus causing all the muddle. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)