Talk:Falklands War/Archive 1

Minor military anecdote?
From the War section, under Goose Green from A larger fight took place on 31 May... until ... what had been forty minutes of sharp action. This seems to me to be far too detailed an account of one particular part of a wider battle; I really don't need to know exactly who fired which shot, jumped out of which window etc. It reads like an anecdote, though might be better housed in Battle_of_Goose_Green. I think this should be removed completely and replaced with something like "On the 31st of May nineteen Royal Marine Commands successfully engaged Argentinian Commandos who had moved into Top Malo House. All thirteen Argentinian Commandos were killed or captured during the forty minute attack." I don't have the necessary topical knowledge to be happy doing this myself.

Chann94501 15:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Also inaccurate, the details are at variance with other sources on the same action. I have found nothing to support the contention that an Argentinian sniper engaged MAWC, though a British sniper was in action and was also wounded. Argentinian forces are variously put at 13-17 and casualties at 2-5 dead and up to 7 wounded. British involvement was 19 with 3 wounded. If nobody more expert addresses this I'll have a go, but I'm a Wikipedia beginner. I could accept the above wording, but this was a significant action since it was special forces on both sides.

Small wording problem
On 26th April 2005, an anonymous user edited the last sentence of the introduction, clipping out "the memory of the war has begun to fade from both countries". The edit summary contains a claim that this clause was false (with anecdotal evidence). The only problem is, this leaves the edited sentence ungrammatical. Could someone with some topic knowledge attend to this? jholman 04:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * not sure if this was already done, but if so it's been redone :D Jamesgibbon 00:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

71.57.35.8 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC) When I was a schoolboy in Argentina, every morning we sang the national anthem and the "Marcha de las Malvinas" (March of the Falklands). Each time you crossed state lines in Argentina, you were greeted by road signs proclaiming sovereignty. I know veterans from this war, and I know their kids. To say that the memory of it has begun to fade is simply not true, at least on our side. 71.57.35.8 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And I concur from the British side. We work closely with the Argentinian Armed Forces these days, but we haven't simply 'forgotten' about the conflict.  How utterly insulting to the memory of many brave soldiers - on both sides. Darth Doctrinus 08:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
In note that Several English spellings have been changed to U.S. on this page. I particularly noted "centred" to "centered" and also "Argentinian" was changed to "Argentinean". The Wikipedia guidelines state that although both versions are acceptable English is to be used for subjects of a British nature. The guidleines also state that spelling should be consistent throughout an article. JP Feb 04
 * In any case, "Argentinean" isn't US, IMHO it's just wrong but the Google test says it's used about half as much as "Argentinian" (it still loses). "Argentine" is OK, so is "Argentinian". Feel free to copy edit the article to a consistent UK or US style and indicate here which way you've gone. Even though I'm a Yank, I'd be inclined toward UK spellings on an article far more likely to be read by a UK audience. -- Jmabel 01:54, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I've just edited the article to use "Argentinian" consistently. "Argentinean" looks wrong to me -- while Google shows a 2:1 preference for "i", Google.co.uk shows an even more pronounced preference for "i", nearer 5:2. -- Arwel 14:31, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There was a spelling mistake in a piece of quoted text (subsection:invasion, first piece of quoted text - "It was very HAD going with our heavy loads" 'had' rather than 'hard') which i fixed, im just thinking that cause this was quoted text it was probably copied straight from somewhere, and that we should inform whomever we copied it from of the typo. The bellman 09:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

older talk
Something weird seems to have happened in the edit history of this article - for example edits I made a while ago (like the spelling of Caspar Weinberger) have reverted, but with no record of anyone doing it. Odd. Oh well.

I have done a few more spellings etc. The article as it stood was inconsistent about whether the adjective is Argentine or Argentinian, and after consulting a couple of books I've made them all Argentinian.


 * The word argentine technically refers to something that is argent in colour. So, unless the Argentinian in question has had a nasty encounter with a can of paint, it's probably not a good idea to use it. Lankiveil


 * It also refers to people from Argentina. For example, see the CIA World Factbook, and elsewhere in Wikipedia.  (I can't find "Argentinian" or "Argentinean" on anything official right now -- where did this word come from?)  Hardly surprising, since the country is named for its silver.

Also inconsistent was the use of tense, some parts being described in the present and others in the past. I found this difficult to follow and have made it all past tense.

Hope these edits are helpful. Nevilley 09:35 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

The just-added bit about Sir Tristam and Sir Galahad are semi-redundant with the previous paragraph, should be cleaned up. Stan 17:58 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
 * Yep! I will try to remember to have a go. It's a shame, people add good stuff, but they don't read the whole article first, so it doesn't get integrated properly. If someone gets to it and fixes it before me, even better! :) Nevilley 08:51 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the overall 'tone' of this article suggest this war was a 'good' thing?

I consider myself very much anti-war, but a cursory overall look with close attention to the trailing end suggests that no, it is not trying to present the conflict as good in any way. It does attempt to study it with a rather technical eye, but overall it is remarkably impartial - not an easy goal to reach with this subject matter. It can so easily degenerate into passioned criticism of one or both sides, but IMHO succeed brilliantly in avoiding that pitfall so far.

Although I will readily grant that both sides of the conflict had at some moment felt pride for it and probably still do in some way. Silly to the extreme, but unfortunately that is to be expected in such wars.

Was there something about the French leaking technical details of the missiles to the British? I seem to remember that. Also, perhaps a postscript about the documentary Tumbledown, and the effect on the British perception of the war? 207.189.98.44 20:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The French government certainly revealed to the UK detailed technical information on the Mirages, I expect they did on the Exocets too.

As for 'silly to the extreme', a Brazilian commentator (anonymous I think) described the conflict as 'two bald men fighting over a comb'. Of course, the islanders considered it far more serious. --Townmouse 23:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Resignation
I don't think John Nott resigned did he? I think Thatcher shoved him to one-side sometime after the war. Carrington definitely resigned though. Who else?Mintguy (T) 21:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
 * I think you're right, the "here today and, may I say gone tomorrow defence secretary" interview with Robin Day was after the war. Arwel 21:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Project
I'v started a project to discuss and manage the pages related to the war, new pages to the war, and the quality of content on these pages. I appreciated the comments people made about real issues concerning some edits of mine, which I did my best to resolve. If there's any remaining issues feel free to edit them, as if there is a problem it can be resolved later. I hope with the formation of the project the wiki content of the war will increase even further in scope and quality. WikiProject_Falklands_War

US involvement
This section needs rewriting, but I can't figure out what it's trying to say: ''A US preoccupation with the USSR and communism and the thought Britain could handle the matter on her own may have factored into this view as well, though the validity of this idea vary. Certainly less respect would have resulted had there been a lot of assistance and would not been out of line of the US passive condonation of Galtieri's earlier actions.'' - Wikibob | Talk 15:47, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Yea I agree thats tough, I'v tried to break down some of the seperate ideas implanted there, and distill it down. Its seem a combination of information that also tries to inform of its level of credibility at the same time.


 * "A US preoccupation with the USSR and communism.."
 * US busy with cold war


 * "...and the thought Britain could handle the matter on her own may have factored into this view as well.."
 * Britain does not need help


 * "though the validity of this idea vary"
 * Possibly suggests that- Britain may need help, did not need help but wanted it anyway, US did not give help for some other reason otherthen it was busy with Cold war.


 * "Certainly less respect would have resulted had there been a lot of assistance"
 * Hints that US did not help Britain so it could have more respect, as a collorary or alternative to 'US preoccupied with cold war'


 * "..and would not been out of line of the US passive condonation of Galtieri's earlier actions.''
 * I think this is refering back to the early statement, suggesting that lack of help given was a part of the "US continuing passive condonation"
 * I dont see how this ' less respect for assitance' relates to 'continuing passive condonation' by US however.

I think if we move this last comment near to the first and simplfy the statements, and shift some others it comes out a little clearer. It does shift some meanings however.


 * The US preoccupation with the Cold War, a continuing passive condation of Galerati's actions, a belief that Britain could handle that matter without assitance and receive acclaim for doing so, are among possible explantions for US actions.

What do you think of this? Its kinda of long and wordy rewrite. Might be better to split it up. Greyengine5 21:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the whole section needs reorganising and splitting into paragraphs. Maybe one summarising the USA's statements & actions during the war, then one on the decision to support the UK and one on the actual support given.  The bits from Galtieri likely didn't think... to following the sinking of the General Belgrano should be moved (or removed).


 * Regardless of how it's organised, I think the arguments there are quite weak. Lending very little visible support to a NATO member under attack was a poor move from the geopolitical perspective: it made America look weaker and/or less committed to its allies.  And whatever prestige the US might have gained from an impressive performance by British troops would be tiny compared to the propaganda value of a success thanks to American assistance.  Any logistical or especially military assistance on America's part would be valuable training for future operations.  The 'passive condoning' argument just begs the question.


 * More likely IMO is that (as mentioned) the USA wanted to avoid unnecessarily antagonising its South American trading partners and military allies (particularly the condor dictatorships). And (even) Reagan would prefer to avoid any military expense.  It's also quite possible that the British government didn't want any more than minimal assistance: expelling the Argentinians alone would make a better deterrent against anyone thinking of seizing British possessions, and Thatcher was as direly in need of a victory to boost her popularity as Galtieri.  (In fact that may be what the original writer meant.)


 * It might be worth comparing the US's quite different response to a contemporaneous crisis in another British colony, Grenada. Here the enemy was on the left, and Britain's representative had requested urgent assistance.--Townmouse 23:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

interests, not wishes
in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants is not NPOV. It supports the British side. Argentina maintains that the solution to the conflict should take into account the inhabitants interests, not their wishes.


 * No, it's still NPOV because it doesn't take a position on whether the inhabitants' wishes work for or against their "interests". I've been to the Falklands actually, and the locals take a pretty skeptical view about where Argentina thinks their "interests" lie. Stan 18:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The wishes of the settlers are orthogonal to the property rights that each party claims. To think otherwise might condone all kind of bigger imperialisms or smaller Green Marchs.
 * ---ejrrjs


 * The statement in question says nothing about property rights or any other legalities, nor about whether the inhabitants were there legally or illegally, nor whether their wishes are legitimate or illegitimate. It's just a simple statement whose factuality is not disputed by anyone on any side. NPOV is not about trying to add or delete facts to achieve balance, it's about attributing opinions. Since there aren't any opinions being expressed, NPOV cannot be an issue. Stan 22:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear that the inhabitants wish to maintain the status quo. That is not a point of view, it is a fact. You can argue about whether or not they are aware of their best interests or not, or whether the issue should be decided by that, but it's pretty clear this is a neutral statement. Intrigue 23:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems that British propaganda is the NPOV non plus ultra.
 * Bye ---ejrrjs

Do you have evidence that they wish otherwise? Intrigue 20:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who has visited the Falklands and talked to the locals fairly quickly picks up the fact that they wish to remain governed by the UK. In fact they resist any attempt by the British Government to loosen ties to the UK. More anecdotally, you're unlikely to see more Union Jacks anywhere else. Orourkek 14:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Who are in the Falkland Islands? Englishman! If there were argentinian people, surely they would like to be part of Argentina. The people occupying the Falklands have English costumes, English language, and arrived the Islands by a Brithish invasion in 1833. It's completely natural that their "wishes" are to be British, just cause they ARE Brithish.

I've never seen anything to the contrary. Intrigue 22:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great! Someone did greet the troops as liberators.

The partisan kelpers
Hello, again.

Why does the article state the wishes of the locals in such a prominent place? Is that -perhaps- relevant to the outcome of the war, like, there wassome kelper partisan force instrumental to Argentina defeat? Or, perhaps, Margaret Thatcher send her troops -just- to answer the kelpers' cry for help?

If there is no good reason, perhaps that "fact" should be removed. Or, to keep a fair and balanced POV, some other (true but non relevant) "facts" should also be mentioned? Like,
 * After the war, the islands were still 300 miles away from the Argentinian shores
 * Notwithstanding the humilliating defeat, the wording of Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the bull of pope Alexander VI (1493) still granted the ownership of the islands to Spain.
 * The Argentinian garrison was dismantled, just as in the English invasion of 1833.

Ejrrjs 20:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

71.57.35.8 17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC) In light of some the above, I think the article is terribly biased and even irresponsible. It presents the notion that British ownership was unchallenged and valid, and to place emphasis on the wishes of the British settlers without any mention of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1833_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands) the British expulsion of Argentine settlers in 1833 is downright outrageous.71.57.35.8 17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition in Spanish-language wikipedia
Recent addition in Spanish-language wikipedia; translation follows.


 * En contra del derecho internacional, Estados Unidos facilitó continuamente a Gran Bretaña las imágenes satelitales del posicionamiento de la flota argentina. De esta manera, Los Estados Unidos, de facto, incumplieron el Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca (TIAR), aplicable en casos de guerra, para favorecer a un miembro de la OTAN. Su unilateralidad, en vez de mantener neutralidad por pertenecer a dos tratados de defensa, le valió el descrédito internacional por flagrante incumplimiento de los tratados.


 * In violation international law, the United States continually gave to Great Britain satellite images showing the position of the Argentine fleet. By this, the United States, de facto failed to fulfil the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the Rio Treaty) [on which we seem to lack an article], applicable in cases of war, favoring instead a member of NATO. Their unilaterality, in place of maintaining the neutrality that would have been required by two defense treaties, earned them international discredit for flagrant lack of compliance with treaties.

Rather POV, and our article says only that there were rumors of such information being shared with the UK. I don't know the facts myself at all, I'm just trying to get some communication going. Either (1) the Spanish-language article has some POV material in its narrative that should either be deleted or attributed clearly to a source, (2) there is some proof that the U.S. provided satellite images to the UK and our article should change to reflect that or (3) some combination of the two, like they are right on the images being provided and the treaties being violated but le valió el descrédito internacional por flagrante incumplimiento de los tratados is still pretty excessive POV. Anyway, does anyone know more on citation for the satellite thing? -- Jmabel 06:17, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Mr Jmabel, please read a message for you in es.wikipedia. Also, please read the new 3 external links in the Spanish-language article. Best regards, Manuel González Olaechea. Aug 23

Here is Sr. González Olaechea's response, copied from my Spanish-language discussion page:
 * He leido sus comentarios en la versión inglesa de este artículo. Lo que puse en la versión en español del mismo es exacto y cuidadosamente redactado. Por lo pronto, hoy he puesto un enlace externo al mismo que da luces sobre la materia y clarifica sus dudas. Buscaré más información. Personalmente, como diplomático peruano, estuve destacado en Londres entre 1981 y principios de 1984, como Primer Secretario de la Embajada del Perú en Gran Bretaña y Cónsul del Perú en Londres con jurisdicción en todo ese país.  Se imaginará que tuve que trabajar directamente en este tema durante más de tres meses de lunes a domingo. Como usted comprenderá, manejé informaciones reservadas que hoy día son difícil de sustentar ya que los países involucrados no han desclasificado sus archivos sobre esta guerra y por eso es que no las consigno en el artículo. Atentamente, Manuel González Olaechea y Franco 13:26 23 ago, 2004 (CEST)


 * Espero que con los otros dos enlaces externos agregados al artículo Guerra de las Malvinas, se hayan esclarecido todas sus dudas. Atentamente, Manuel González Olaechea y Franco 16:22 23 ago, 2004 (CEST)

Translating; if anyone can improve the translation, feel free, I'm pretty much dashing this off:


 * I've read your remarks in the English-language version of this article. What I put in the Spanish-language version of the same is exactly and carefully edited. For now, I've put an external link there which sheds light on the material and clarifies what you've doubted. I will look for more information. Personally, as a Peruvian diplomat, I was stationed in London from 1981 to the beginning of 1984, as First Secretary  to the Peruvian Embassy in Great Britain and Peruvian Consul in London with jurisdiction for the whole country. As you can imagine, I had to work directly on this matter for three months, seven days a week. As you will understnad, I handled classified information that today is difficult to get hold of and the countries involved have not desclassified their archives about this war and for this reason I could not place this in the article. Attentively, Manuel González Olaechea y Franco 13:26 23 ago, 2004 (CEST)


 * I hope that with the two other external links added to the artecle es:Guerra de las Malvinas, I've cleared away all of your doubts. Attentively, Manuel González Olaechea y Franco 16:22 23 ago, 2004 (CEST)

Here is the main link he provided: http://www.ptb.be/doc/em47/malouines.htm

Is anyone here interested in challenging this? If not, I would say we should bring our article in line with the Spanish-language article (minus the POV) rather than vice versa. At the very least, we should add Sr. González Olaechea's link to our article and possibly quote Sr. González Olaechea himself to this effect, since he is certainly himself (as a Peruvian diplomat) a reasonably authoritative source. -- Jmabel 15:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

As far as the US being discredited internationally, I can only say that the "Yanquis Go Home!" spraypainted on every other wall in Buenos Aires first popped up around the time of the Malvinas War. The English version article is incredibly biased.71.57.35.8 17:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Medical
I have no idea what the Medical section is trying to say. What does blood 'curdling' mean? Clotting? Does anyone know if this idea -- lowering body temperature to inhibit blood loss, rather than transfusing blood -- is important enough to mention here? --Saforrest 16:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks like its something that's come out of the Google language translator. I think the substance of what the paragraph is trying to say is correct even if it doesn't actually make much sense at the moment. I do seem to remember an issue surrounding the fact that received wisdom at the time was that in normal circumstances a patient suffering great blood loss should be kept warm. But it was discovered that patients who endured the cold in the Falklands before receiving medical treatment actually fared better than those who has received immediate medical treatment and had been kept warm. I don't have any further information on this though. Mintguy (T) 17:06, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Source of numbers dead?
A recent edit by User:210.50.96.33 has changed the numbers of dead in the Goose Green section to the following:

After a tough struggle which lasted all night and into the next day; seventeen British and 47 Argentine soldiers were killed and 1050 Argentinean troops were taken prisoner.

Previously this was 17 British, 200 Argentine (a rounded number?), and 1400 (again rounded?) prisoner.

The Spanish article says nothing but both the German and French articles mirrored the English one before this change:

''Am 28. Mai eroberten britische Truppen Darwin und Goose Green nach hartem Kampf, 17 britische und 200 argentinische Soldaten wurden getötet und 1400 gefangengenommen.''

Après une dure bataille où dix sept Britanniques et deux cent Argentins perdirent la vie, mille quatre cent de ces derniers furent prisonniers.

I suppose the question is apart from which source is claiming these figures? -Wikibob | Talk 12:29, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

I just noticed the Battle of Goose Green article shows Argentinians had lost fifty men killed -Wikibob | Talk 12:49, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

In regard to sources, this page lists the number of dead from the sinking of the General Belgrano as 321. However the ARA General Belgrano page states that 323 were killed in the attack. and http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_037100_generalbelgr.htm states that 368 were killed, Also http://www.cibernautica.com.ar/gralbelgrano/ albeit in spanish states that again 323 were killed. Which is it? any ideas? Malo 03:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * According to [], an official homepage in Spanish, 323 lost their lives with ARA General Belgrano - 321 military and 2 civilian personnel. Necessary Evil 20:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

International respect
I find the following sentence highly controversial: It has also been said by diplomats that following the British victory there was an increase in international respect for Britain. How many people outside Britain, and especially in Southern America, have much respect for a colonial power, led by an Iron Lady? Get-back-world-respect 15:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * How is this controversial? I realise the author hasn't sourced it, but I've certainly read this elsewhere. It also makes sense. Do you have evidence for your contrary opinion? Wiki-Ed 18:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I dont see a problem with this, many nations viewed the UK's military and economic capcity for war in a new light after the Falklands campaign. For example the Soviet union closely followed the war for signs of how a European Army would fair in a 'modern' war. Many nations saw the value of a professionally trained and well equipt army over an adolescent conscript army. Also, can we please clarify this - When using formal english(edited, post-facto, but still wrong -- Badwolf) Britain refers to England Scotland and Wales, its a geographic term that refers to an island. You mean to say the United Kindgom which refers to the nation. Britain is a place, The United Kindgom is a nation. E.g. "Argentinians go to Britain on holiday" and "Argentina was defeated in the falklands war by the United Kingdom." Likewise 'the British' refers to the people of Britain and is an incorrect term for this article as Northern Irish forces also participated in the campaign.


 * In the absence of the word "United-Kingdomish", the term "British" is also the adjective used to describe a person or thing belonging to the United Kingdom - I have a UK passport and am therefore British. Bazza 09:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To confirm what Bazza says. One from Northern Ireland is a British Citizen. British is ambiguious, but is generally used to mean of the United Kingdom, not of Great Britain (that would be Great British, which is also clearly daft). British Isles terminology refers.


 * Bazza et al. - I would say that whilst you are technically correct that the term 'British' does bestowe a level of ambuiguity, this is an encylcopedia and that such 'formal' conventions as these should be observed. This is a problem very prevelant throughout wikipedia. Whilst that kind of terminology may be acceptable in a day to day conversation it is hardly up to encylopedic standards. Furthermore the correct term for someone from the United Kingdom is not 'United-Kingdomish' but is infact a 'UK citizen(s)'. I appreciate this isn't something thats going to change entirley on wikipedia because its a mistake so many make, but none the less if we're trying to make an encylopedia in formal English we really should observe the correct grammatical use of the words.


 * I'm afraid I must strongly disagree. The geographical term you refer to is *Great Britain*. Britain, by itself is neither a geographical nor political term. You are also wrong that a citizen of the UK is formally a "UK Citizen". They are a "British Citizen", as cursory glance at a British passport will demonstrate. Again British Isles terminology refers. You are quite wrong to say it's a mistake. The formal description of an object or person from the UK is 'British'. This is wholly appropriate in the context of an encycopedia. Great Britain is NOT synonymous with Britain. The UK IS synonymous with Britain and British is the correct grammar when describing an entity from the UK. The term is only ambiguous as there are those who misunderstand the distinction as applied formally -- sometimes deliberatly in the case of Irish rebels. --BadWolf42 17:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "the British' refers to the people of Britain and is an incorrect term for this article as Northern Irish forces also participated in the campaign" It was the British armed forces who did the fighting. If you want to resort to official names, the soldiers on the ground were of the British Army. I think that is reason enough for the use of the term 'the British'. -- Lordandmaker 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My passport says the same as BadWolf's. "British" as a nationality includes the citizens of Northern Ireland. "Britain" is a term best avoided as it does not have any formal or legal definition anywhere, as the British Isles terminology explains. The "British Army" (itself a term not as clearly defined as in other countries - see British_army) includes UK citizens from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all of whom are British. I am aware of some confusion in the United States about the term British used for our nationality - for example, the only answer US immigration will accept from British citizens who are asked their nationality is "UK". Bazza 15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst Bazza's statements over the correctness of British and the rigour of avoiding the term 'Britain' are well founded, for completeness, I thought I should point out (having recently been through the US visa waiver system), British is the nationality US immigration accept. Passport issuing authority is, as is standard however, the UKPA. Sorry for muddying otherwise superbly clear waters, Bazza! ;-) --BadWolf42 23:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 'The UK IS synonymous with Britain'. Oh no it's not. A quick perusal of the act under which the British occupation in Ireland continues will be very clear about precisely what the UK is, and what it isn't. I suggest you familiarise yourself with your own British laws, as jingoistic as they are in this case, before uttering such nonsense like the 'UK IS synonymous with Britain'. Oh, and one other thing: the only "rebels" in Ireland are the British state and its settler-colonial loyalist herrenvolk who are holding out against the wishes of the vast majority of Ireland's population. Your empire is over; all that remains is the longest hangover in world history. 193.1.172.163 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you haven't actually read the conversation, then. The 1800 act of Union unified the kingdoms of Ireland and Great Britain. You'll notice that Great Britain is capitalised and is a proper noun. It is not 'Britain', which is colloquial and a synonym for the UK. You might not like it, but there is is. The adjective to describe something of the UK, however, is completely non-colloquial and is 100% official: British. I see the magnitude of the failure of your comprehension is only matched by that of your attitude.---BadWolf42 13:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sentence needs fixing
Can someone fix the following sentence from the "Background" section:

On the other hand, Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, was losing popularity before the conflict started, then being involved in a war could helped her for reelection.

Paul August 22:53, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Edits from 13 Nov 04:
Invasion

Deleted surplus "was about" in para 11.

Inserted "at the radio station" in para 17. Incidentally, Patrick Watts was still broadcasting when Argentinian soldiers entered the Falkland Islands Broadcasting Service (FIBS) building. He told them on air: "Do not point those guns at me".

Sinking of the Belgrano

Inserted "Labour MP".

Deleted "frontier" and inserted "area of conflict".

Landings at Port San Carlos

Inserted 2nd & 3rd batallions, The Parachute Regiment"

Goose Green

Deleted "invasion" and inserted "taking".

Have also made other minor edits.

Queries

In the "Battle for Port Stanley" section of the article, it states "236 British dead" - In the "Political" section, "255". Which is the correct figure ?

Finally

Regarding the comments from 207.189.98.44 on 20 Feb 04, about the French and the Exocet missiles, I seem to remember reading / hearing something about them resupplying the Argentinians during the war.

I would like to conclude by saying that although I think it is an excellent article, I would say there is there is plenty of scope for pruning the "Invasion" section. This would achieve two things, (1) The "Invasion" section is far more detailed than the rest of the article, so by editing it, it would be more balanced and (2) The article is at present some 54 kb long, way over the recommended 32 kb.

Anon 15 Nov 04

partly addressing FAC objections
I made edits to address some of the Featured article candidates objections:
 * enlarged lead section, but still too short
 * copied book references to references section
 * standardised boldface and italic; I may have missed some though
 * split up the long "Invasion" section

I would prefer that the invasion section be split off into its own article, with a heavily pruned summary in this one, as this would avoid losing information.

Finally, there are still discrepancies on the reported number of dead in the various battles, should we preface each report with the source of that report? -Wikibob | Talk 18:29, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Jonathunder
Jonathunder reverted several of my edits, and I am puzzled as to why. Two were grammatical errors that I corrected; one was to note that Al Haig, as well as Caspar Weinberger, sided with the British; one was to clarify an ambiguous sentence ("Regardless, American non-interference was vital.") I'd like to know what was objectionable about these edits. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, I'm with you on this, even though it was to my last version he reverted. I thought your edits were fine.... Fawcett5 01:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I realize I made a mistake, or maybe a couple of mistakes. My apologies. Jonathunder 03:26, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
 * The version after the edits displayed strangely in my browser, while the version before did not. I looked at the user name that made the edits, recognized it as a reference to a cartoon character, and thought someone was clowning around.


 * Re: my username -- I joined Wikipedia on a whim, not knowing that it is addictive. Friends at the office nicknamed me Herschel Krustofsky because of my large smile, and I really had no idea he was such a household word. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Overwikification
Does it seem to anyone else that the present version is somewhat over-wikified? It seems a bit cluttered to have words like "beach" and "vehicle" linked. --H.K. 15:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe I've overdone the wikification a bit, but really, it does no harm, and to my point of view it plays to one of Wikipedia's great strengths: it encourages exloration of articles and subjects you might never otherwise consider. I love to start on a random Wiki page and just go off on a tangent to see where you end up. Fawcett5 22:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've gotten to this page in that manner, but I have to agree that the article is overwikified. If "peace plan" is wikied, I'd hope that it links to an article, or section of an article, of the relevant peace plan. Same with words like "beach." I think relevance is key. Aardhart 08:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

POV here
Look: "in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants.". This is the official English excuse for mantaining the islands unther their colonial rule, but they just semm to forget that the inhabitants aren't a "neutral" source, as the so called "kelpers" are nothing but English people, whith the same language, culture and political view on the issue.

I think that this can be corrected just pointing out that the inhabitants are of British origin and were sent there to colonise the territory since the British invasion of 1833.
 * "in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants" is an expression of the principle of self-determination which is a fundamental basis for international relations. I point you at Chapter 1, Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Charter of the United Nations: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;" is one of the aims of the UN. So what if the inhabitants of the islands are of British origin? Most of the inhabitants of Argentina are of Spanish or Italian origin, and moreover in many cases their families have been resident in Argentina for less time than the families of the islanders have been resident there. -- Arwel 13:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Now, imagine that Bangladesh goes and installs a colony in the British Virgin Islands, returning the already established population to Britain. Will the inhabitants "wish" be that of native, non-influenced people, or of people put there to colonise?


 * I note that this article says that Argentines were evicted, but that history of the Falkland Islands does not. I think we'd like to see a reference that can give details like when exactly they were made to leave, how many were evicted, what happened to them (tied up and dropped out of a helicopter perhaps? :-) ), etc. The WP material on what happened in the 1830s is rather thin. Stan 15:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Escudé, Carlos & Cisneros, Andrés: Capítulo 14: Historia de las Islas Malvinas desde el descubrimiento hasta la ocupación inglesa de 1833 (in Spanish) (Chapter 14: History of the Malvinas Islands from its discovery to the 1833 British occupation), in History of Argentina's Foreign Relations.
 * P.S: I find quite offensive your bad joke re:desaparecidos. Ejrrjs | What? 17:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Got a reference in English? My Spanish isn't good enough even to tell whether your reference is serious history or a political tract, and I'm not going to be able to visit my local university's library until the week after next. I'm sure this has all been extensively researched by academic historians, there's no excuse for not citing a dozen English-language books here. Stan 00:33, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Try this as an excuse: I will not do your homework. Learn (more) Spanish, it'll be good for your NPOV Ejrrjs | What? 00:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The principle of self determination applying to new settlers does cause some problems (Israel, the Russian near 50% in the Baltic states, Arabs settled in oil rich areas of Kurdistan by Saddam) however when they have been there since 1830 they can hardly be considered new settlers otherwise the Apaches will get back New Mexico & even Plymouth rock is insecure. For similar reasons the Pope's bull about dividing the America's between Spain & Portugal is no longer considered binding.71.57.35.8 17:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wherever the truth ultimately lies, I think not to have this article labeled as disputed is wrong. There needs to be a big red sign for anyone who comes across this saying that it expresses the British side of the war and that plenty of people hold opposite views.71.57.35.8 17:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't possibly agree. It expresses the international side of the war as confirmed by the UN. If you wish to add a section explaining the Argentinian nationalistic fervour and the reasons they used to justify it, simply put in such a new section. It will be peer reviewed as is customary.


 * There are people who think the moon landings were faked, but that doesn't mean the Apollo 11 page should be marked as disputed, as it's not a credible position. I'd suggest railing against long-established prinicples of self-determination would fall under a similar category.BadWolf42

War box
I can't do it myself since the article is too long to edit with my browser but could someone correct the spelling of "possesion" to "possession" in the "war box"? Also, adding flags would be nice as would changing the colour to the yellow used in our other war templates (see Korean War for example). AndyL 16:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naming Convention
this is probably my argie nationalism speaking but i have a friend who works at the argie foreign affairs office and she told me that according to the UN every map should say "Falklands/Malvinas Disputed Zone" so i think that "Falkland Islands (Malvinas in spanish)" should be changed to "Falkland/Malvinas" also the title of the article "Falkland Islands" should be changed to "Falkland/Malvinas Islands" what do you think?????
 * A lot easier is to have a redirection from Malvinas War to Falklands War, and Malvilans to Falklands.
 * Why not the other way around? Well, a) because most people know them by that name, b) it's english name and this Wikipedia is in english, c) Sadly they are still under British control.
 * --Marianocecowski 07:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the residents of the islands call the islands the Falklands. That does count for something. &mdash;Morven 09:10, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a citation for this being UN policy? I note that none of "malvinas disputed zone" and several variants get any Google hits at all, which would be pretty unusual for official UN policy - policies and statements are usually mirrored by hundreds of governmental and partisan sites. Stan 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the UN Committee on decolonization, Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is one of the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories, along with American Samoa; Anguilla; Bermuda; British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; ; Gibraltar; Guam; Montserrat; New Caledonia; Pitcairn; Saint Helena; Tokelau; Turks and Caicos Islands; United States Virgin Islands; and Western Sahara. Ejrrjs | What? 01:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article is long overdue
The article has now become quite unwieldy and lacks cohesion. We need to spawn a few daughter articles. In particular, some of the accounts of individual battles are probably worthy of their own article, especially where it devolves to first person accounts. Perhaps the cultural impact section could also stand on its own? Any ideas or consensus about how best to proceed? Fawcett5 14:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've spun off the Invasion into Invasion of the Falkland Islands, and my summary here could do with cleanup. Size of article is now down to 41 Kb. I moved the three book refs too, so now there are none in the main article, but some book refs are still inlined. I agree that the cultural impact could be spun off, and also I find the giant single Falklands War paragraph unwieldly. -Wikibob | Talk 19:00, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV on April 2 page
I notice that the April 2 page has been anonymously edited to change the entry to the following:

1982 - Falklands War: Argentina recovers by force the Falkland Islands, usurpated by the United Kingdom in 1833, starting the war.

which seems to me to lack NPOV. Plus the fact that "usurpated" is not a word. Can someone suggest a better alternative?

(I raise this issue here as folks watching this page are more likely to have relevant input.)


 * I agree. It should be something short and quite factual. Something like: "On 2 April, Argentinian forces invaded the Falkland Islands at the start of the Falklands War." Let the readers follow the links if they want historical context. -- Jonathunder 22:22, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * Invade is not NPOV either. It assumes as a fact that the islands do not belong to Argentina See meaning of invade Ejrrjs | What? 00:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I used the term that was in this article. See also List of invasions, which includes this event. Jonathunder 01:14, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)


 * It is ludicrous to suggest that "invade" is POV. The "Allies" invaded France in 1944. Who did it belong to? Jooler 08:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Invade" is the right word, although "usurpated" is so charmingly bad I'm half-inclined to keep it. :-) Stan 13:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the entry. Jonathunder 00:53, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
 * 1982 - Falklands War: Invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina. The disputed islands are later retaken by the United Kingdom.

"Let the readers follow the links if they want historical context"?!? Is your purpose to educate or to spread a viewpoint in hopes that people won't catch it? There needs to be some mention in this article of the illegal holding of the islands by the British at the time. Granted, it was a political move by Galtieri to invade, but that doesn't change the fact that the Malvinas belong to Argentina.71.57.35.8 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Invade is fine. To invade on a military basis means to take ground which was not originially in your physical possesion. Whether it is claimed by someone or not is irrelevant. The Falkland islands were manned/occupied however you want to see it by British forces, the Argentine military attacked and captured/liberated/enslaved *whatevered* that region and displaced the british forces to elsewhere. It was in every sense of the word an 'invasion'. Say we were both in a mutual friends house and you were in one room, But then I walked in and forced you out - it would in the sense of the word be an 'invasion'. The legal owner of that room is irrelevant, you physically occupied it and I took it from you without your consent - 'invasion'. Pretty simple. I believe when they said "usurpated" they meant usurped, now usurped does mean to 'steal' something which does not belong to you, Invasion and Usurped are not to be confussed they mean vaguely similar but fundamentally different things.

Chilean involvement under Pinochet's regime
We now know that Chile, under Pinochet's regime, was the only country in South America that helped the British during the Falklands war and it was deemed a "crucial ally". Former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher voiced her opposition to deport Pinochet from Britain when Spain sought to extradite him in 1998 to put him on trial. Under Pinochet Chile was a "war friend" of Britain, offering bases for SAS operations and extremely valuable intelligence. Anyone has more information on this? --Dynamax 06:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you add that, then please put it next to the pseudo conflict between Chile and Argentina. This is important, because it was a security issue for Chile the war between Argentina and the UK(if Argentina had won the war, it's probable that they would've continued with Chile).


 * Mtad: Argentina would have invaded Chile? That's speculation. We are talking facts (what happened) and not hypothesis (what could have). Please, don't forget to sign your comments. -Mariano 07:22, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)


 * There's a whole lot of unattributed posture in the South American reaction section. Chile provided important logisitcal support? Source? As I understand it, they send some T42s through the Panama Canal, and restationed troops. Any sources for these important support roles, or even the SAS launch sites? Secondly, proclaiming all but Chile in S. America backed Argentina could do with some sources, as it's clearly not how I recall they felt. Hence Brazil's reaction to the broken fuelling probe Vulcan's arrival in Rio (strictly neutral). If we can't tidy this up by Monday, I'll move that section here for work. It seems neither NPOV nor verifiable. ---BadWolf42


 * The Twentieth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held in Washington, D.C., April 26, 1982. Organization of American States approved a resolution supporting the Argentine position with 14 favours and 4 abstentions : Chile, Colombia, Trinidad Tobago and USA. Ironically, 20 years later, Chile begun supporting Argentina after Pinochet was arrested in UK. Would be interesting to find something about the Colombian vote. About the military aspect, Argentina officialy recognized receiving support of Venezuelan and Peru Air Forces during the War and aircraft were delivered by Peru and Brazil after the war (they are still in service). About chilean support you can surely easy find it at google and I don't remember now how many day does Brazil retain the Vulcan  Jor70 01:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK have added cite and fixed some grammar for the OAS resolution. Be aware the resolution supported Argentinian soveignty and deplored the EEC sanctions. It didn't explicitly support the military intervention. Re. Chilian support, we know they deployed forces and destroyers. If you want to claim there was direct support, you need a cite. It's not the readers' job to Google for you. The Vulcan was, IIRC, interned for the duration, as is expected of a *neutral* country.--BadWolf42 12:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re. chile support The Official History of the Falklands Campaign by Sir Lawrence Freedman Ps. What happens with my bridge sentence ??  (if not fit there, we can move it)  Jor70 12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In the news today
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm

Secret Falklands fleet revealed A Royal Navy task force was sent to the Falkland Islands to defend them from Argentine attack five years before the war there, archive papers have shown.

Continued in article.

Historicity
Is there a source that confirms the historicity of the following passage recently added to the article? The weasle word "believed" makes me doubt if it is verifiable.


 * However, it is believed that with the renewed confidence gained from the victory, Margaret Thatcher suggested in her 1983 China visit an extension of British rule in Hong Kong (which would legally end in 1997 when the 99-year lease of the territory expires, although Beijing never recognized the 1898 treaty). She was famously rebuffed during a meeting with then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping with comments such as "China is no Argentina" and "We can order troops into Hong Kong this afternoon". Formal discussions of British withdrawal from the territory started after this Beijing visit and Hong Kong was returned to China on July 1, 1997.

Cheers, Fawcett5 15:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an accurate account of the reaction to Thatcher's suggestion of an extension on the (Hong Kong) New Territories lease. http://www.tsinoy.com/blog/index.php?op=Default&Date=200602&blogId=84 http://www.skycitygallery.com/hk/hk.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/EE21Ad02.html Boldymumbles 14:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sinking of the Belgrano
For everyone's enjoyment, I inserted some info from Sir Lawrence Freedman, care of the Times, that neither Thatcher or the Cabinet knew about the Belgrano's change of course before the cruiser was sunk. It's such a shame she got all that flak considering that it wasn't her fault after all. John Smith's 30 June 2005 23:41 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it seems that the direct link to timesonline.co.uk doesn't work; one needs to log in first. Is this information mirrored anywhere else that can be linked directly? siafu 30 June 2005 23:48 (UTC)


 * Erm, you shouldn't have to log on - I don't have an account with them. I guess you'll just have to read the book with them, if you can't read the article. Sorry John Smith's 1 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)

I was reading the section on the sinking of the Belgrano with *no* background knowledge and I think it failed to explain the situation. I am none the wiser. Eddwardo 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A POV bit?

 * "The government, headed by President General Leopoldo Galtieri, decided to play off long-festering nationalistic sentiment by launching what it thought would be a quick and easy war to reclaim the Falkland Islands. They seriously misjudged the will of the British Government and people, who had never willingly lost territory in war."

Sounds like pro-British POV to me. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Ejrrjs | What? 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Image
Astro:

That image of the Belgrano sinking is a jewel, great addition!!

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Impact in Argentina
This question is for Argentinians: do you remember that the military junta forbid English-language songs in the radio and other media? I know it happened, and probably other things as well (English teaching academies, etc.) but I can't find a good source. Unless I'm missing it, this topic has not been covered elsewhere. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Look for a national rock or folklore history; they had a boom because of that; previously banned artists (la Sosa, León Gieco...) were back on the air. User:Ejrrjs says What? 11:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For example:
 * They even changed a street's name in Buenos Aires (Canning, to Scalabrini Ortiz) because the name honored a British General. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And it's a pity...George Canning was the Foreign Minister of the UK who pushed for the recognition of the independence of the Latin American countries :-) User:Ejrrjs says What? 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But he took us Uruguay!!! ;o) Mariano (t/c) 09:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath in Argentina
There's an article on Clarín (newspaper) today about the siucide of a ex, where it states that around 350 veterans commited suicide since the end of the war. El suicidio de un soldado distinguido con la medalla de honor en Malvinas. Mariano (t/c) 06:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

French involvement Effect
Its not accurate, the decision  to buy 36 A-4AR to the US was because the IAI Kfirs, A-7s and F-16s were vetoed and 36 new Mirage 2000 will not cost just u$s 250 m as the skyhawks. Peru, for example bought 26 and they must cut them to 13 later due the high costs. Anyway, after the war,   Chile got Mirage 50 (later transform to Panteras) and so Venezuela. Ecuador got Mirage F1 and Jaguars. Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, for mention, got Aerospatiale Super Pumas helicopters. Is to be noticed also that South American air forces didn't renew their combat aircraft soon after the war. And now, Brazil has just opted for surplus Mirage 2000 and Argentina is following. Jor70 21:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

British Empire
The old version claimed that Thatcher invoked the name of the British Empire in order to justify the war. This is utter nonsense, as anyone familiar with British politics would know. If anyone wants to restore it, then please cite a proper source. TharkunColl 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * lol the article originally included that statement, so if you remove it without any sources then you are the vandal. i'll revert all your changes until you show me some respect and community service, ok? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.123.178.194 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * How can one prove a negative? I edited this article because it is wrong, and biased. If Thatcher really had invoked the name of the British Empire to justify the war she would have been laughed out of parliament, and if you really believe otherwise then you have a rather inaccurate view of the British. Here's my source - read Thatcher's autobiography, The Downing Street Years. You will discover that the justification for the war was very simple - the right of self-determination for the people of the Falklands, who chose to remain British. TharkunColl 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? I don't have the book, and nearly all Wikipedians don't have it. You have been blocked several times before your actions here, do you want to be blocked again? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.123.178.194 (talk &bull; contribs).

I've been blocked once, for trying to revert a vandal. I will continue to remove the statement about the British Empire until you, or someone else, provides a quote. Any British politician who attempted to justify her actions by reference to the Empire would have been laughed out of office. The statement is blatantly POV. TharkunColl 09:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that the standard is that when a statement is controversial - when it is being questioned - it should be sourced. If it isn't sourced within a reasonable amount of time, it should be removed and placed on the talk page.


 * Thatcher's autobiography was published by a major publisher (HarperCollins) and is quite readily available. Sellers on Amazon are selling used copies for only 50 cents, in fact!  It is ridiculous to state that because you don't have a particular book it isn't a reasonable source.


 * I have not seen any source that shows that Thatcher invoked the name of the British Empire, nor do I ever remember such a statement. "Self-determination" were indeed the words commonly used.  Certainly some people may have thought of Empire, but I don't remember such a thing coming from the British government.   Since several people doubt it, you need a cite in order to have it in the article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine Thatcher making such an imperalistic type statement. She hated the British Commonwealth (although was very loyal to the crown). Astrotrain 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it very difficult to believe that Thatcher would have invoked the name of the British Empire. Also, books are perfectly acceptable references, see Citing sources. --Saforrest 15:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The following is taken from a press release issued by Conservative Central Office, release time 14:30/Saturday 3 July 1982:
 * ''"SPEAKING TO A CONSERVATIVE RALLY AT CHELTENHAM RACE COURSE ON SATURDAY, 3rd JULY 1982


 * "TODAY WE meet in the aftermath of the Falklands Battle. Our country has won a great victory and we are entitled to be proud.


 * (four short paragraphs omitted)


 * "There were those who would not admit it - even perhaps some here today - people who would have strenuously denied the suggestion but - in their heart of hearts - they too had their secret fears that it was true: that Britain was no longer the nation that had built an Empire and ruled a quarter of the world.


 * "Well they were wrong. The lesson of the Falklands is that Britain has not changed and that this nation still has those sterling qualities which shine through our history" (speech continues for approx three more pages)


 * So Thatcher DID invoke the British Empire. In fact, for anyone (like me) who grew up through the period when the UK was granting independence to most of its colonies, it was one of those things that was always in the background. It hardly needed to be mentioned for it to be there.

--NSH001 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much to the above user. That Thatcher person needed all of Northern England, and every Irish person on earth, on her at the one time. She really was a horrid supremacist old article. Repulsive in the extreme be it her support for Suharto's genocide of the East Timorese, Pinochet's assassinations of political opponents, or her shoot-to-kill and collusion policies in British occupied Ireland. 193.1.172.138 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert battle
We have a revert war going on between two users, one who keeps changing IPs, the other logged in. Both have used offensive edit summaries, and I invite them both to stop that right now and discuss, in civil language, the nature of the dispute here. Jonathunder 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll stop reverting changes, but what would you call this?.

Well, my foul-mouthed friend, what I would call that is an adumbration of the reasons why the Falkland Islanders will never, ever agree to surrender their sovereignty to Argentine control. TharkunColl 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

US treaty obligations
The text currently says this:


 * Legally, the United States had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to the UK as a member of NATO and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the "Rio Pact"). However, the North Atlantic Treaty only obliges the signatories to support if the attack occurs in Europe or North America above the Tropic of Cancer.  The Rio Pact only obliges the US to intervene if one of the adherants to the treaty is attacked - the UK never attacked Argentina, only Argentine forces on British territory. (emphasis mine)

Of course no one would dispite that the attack happened south of the Tropic of Cancer. But isn't the second sort of begging the question, because it implicitly assumes the U.S. recognized the Falklands as exclusively British territory? Certainly Argentina would not have accepted such a rationale for U.S. non-involvement. --Saforrest 15:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

NATO membership obliges the recognition of the territorial claims of one's co-members, so therfore the US, in signing the NATO treaty, was endorsing the UK territorial claim to the Falklands. Whether or not there was some similar clause within the Rio Treaty, I don't know. Boldymumbles 14:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Absence of Helicopters
I find it quite surprising that the article makes no mention of the lack of helicopters for transport and support during the War - given the terrain and geography of the theatre, airborne units would have been ideal for this action.

For those who don't know - most of the helicopters intended for the War were sunk as the one ship carrying them was lost in a storm en route to the islands - the loadmaster at Southampton should have spread the euqipment more evenly through the supply fleet. Horus Kol 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * a storm ? The Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by an Exocet, the Wessex and Chinooks (all but one) were lost with the ship. Jor70 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic
I've we-worded the use of the word 'nationalistic' as nationalism covers it and makes more sense with the reference to 'nationalism'.

ahpook 02:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

French Involvement - Nuclear Weapons
Is it really worth including Francois Mitterand's ridiculous ramblings to his psychoanalyst in this article as alleged fact?. It is against international law to use nuclear weapons against a country which doesn't possess them. The UK would never use them against a minor power such as Argentina, and would only launch them in any case as a retaliatory strike against a country who had already launched a WMD at it. Yes, there were nuclear submarines in the area, but these were only nuclear-propelled subs, not nuclear-armed ones.160.84.253.241 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd support its removal, whilst the idea may have been available it would never have been used - any attempt to make it appear like it may be on the table would have simply been to intimidate the Argentine Government into capitulating defeat. The UK's nuclear arsenal has never been more than a deterrant, never a viable combat tactic.


 * 213.42.2.21 09:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with mentioning Ali Magoudi's book - the reader should decide whether to believe or not in thoe "ramblings", but what worries me is a possibly contradictory notion that "it is not clear how the Argentinians were able to launch all of their available missiles." An article on the Super_Etendard claims that "All five of the missiles were used during the conflict...". This is a clear contradiction between two separate Wiki articles.

Ali Magoudi was not Mitterand's psychoanalyst. Mitterand never undertook an analysis. Ali Magoudi's book is the fictional account of what he thought Mitterand's analysis would have been. It is however based on discussions Magoudi and Mitterand had together, but in my opinion Mitterand may very well have altered reality to support his position. pyr 11:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Argentinian vs. Argentinean ?
Someone has just changed every instance of "Argentinian" to "Argentinean". What is the basis for this? And also, I thought the word has "Argentine". -- Gnetwerker 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

P.s. -- "Argentinian" gets 4.6m google hits, "Argentinean" gets 3.6m google hits, and "Argentine" gets 56m google hits. -- Gnetwerker 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That was me. MS Word flagged Argentinian as wrong and Argentinean as correct. i'm happy with either. p.s. Don't trust Google for anything, all it tells you is what people on the Internet say and they are mostly American or geeks who can't spell. i'll change it back. Jooler 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * i checked with a writer friend of mine of who is from argenitna and tells me that all 3 forms are right. he seems to think that Argentinean is more popular than the others uri budnik 18:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was taught in school (in Argentina) that the right one is "Argentine". I have no preference although "Argentine" looks (?) best... Sebastian Kessel Talk
 * PS: It is also the direct translation of the spanish demonym "Argentino", as opposed to "Argentiniano". Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sebastian, just see some categories and you'll find which's the most common form =) --ShiningEyes 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So far, Argentine has always been the preferred term in Wikipedia. Argentine Mariano (t/c) 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Black Buck Raids usefulness
I would like to add a NPOV at the phrase : but the Argentine Air Force (FAA) realized that the British were likewise capable of hitting targets on the mainland, and immediately moved back all jet fighters in order to protect against this possibility. Not only is not evidence about these, in fact official Argentine Air Force sources cited the chilean airctaft threat much more realistic than a British one against the mainland due political reasons. Anyway, and most important, Grupo 8 Mirages were deployed to Comodoro Rivadavia and Rio Gallegos on April before the raids and remain there until June and as it say later, the Mirage III due their lack of air refuelling capability and less fuel capacity than an IAI Dagger were used just as decoys because they couldn't stay over the islands. Jor70 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Black Buck Raids confusion
The wording of the first two paragraphs in this section is confusing. In paragraph one it states that only one bomb hit the runway then describes the Argentinian response. In paragraph two it describes nine Harrier jets striking the same runways minutes later.

Clearly both applications of ordinance on the runways influenced Argentinian strategy. I would combine the air raids in one paragraph or reserve the conclusion statement until after the description of the Harrier sorty.


 * Whilst I don't see how the Harrier attack on Stanley could mean a similar attack on Argentina (unlike with Black Buck), I've tried tidying it up as you suggested. How's that? --BadWolf42 12:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Bluff Cove landings
I've removed the following:


 * The Guards movements were required to be done by helicopter or ship because the guardsmen had failed to yomp from Port San Carlos to the marshalling area at Port Stanley, due combat engineers of the Argentine Army blown up the Bluff Cove bridge. Elite troops from Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment made the yoump walking through another route (Source: The Battle For The Falklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins ).

As it doesn't make any sense. Why would you marshall at Port Stanley (occupied) for the Bluff Cove support mission? The Marines and Paras who marched to Stanley were going to assault Stanley, not support existing troops.

The shipborne route was taken as a military advance had not consulted with Naval planners and were dangerously exposed. The troops could not walk fast enough (1mph made good, [Sandy Woodward]) and with only one helicopter the airborne route was also out. There were many cockups and confusion in the sending of the landing ships, including the mistaking of Fitzroy for Port Fitzroy and vice-versa and the marine commander refusing to return the landing craft as scheduled as thought he'd been landed at the wrong point (this is probably the bit about the bridge, I'll dig this out later).

I suspect there's confusion over landing craft and landing ships here. I'll change this to a fuller account when I get home and can check Woodward and Clapp, but this is geographically illogical and causally suspect, so I've removed it for now. --BadWolf42 11:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've gone through this and re-written almost the entire section with a far more detailed description of the build up to the disaster at Fitzroy. My references directly dispute the claim the Bluff Cove bridge being destroyed necessitated the landing as the landing would always be needed to get the heavy weapons there (there was a corresponding one in Teal Inlet), also the bridge is south of Bluff Cove and San Carlos is north. I've included it for completeness, nonetheless.--BadWolf42 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the Number of Deaths/Casualties
The first part of this Wiki article (in the introduction) says that there were "1,000 deaths on both sides." This seems unclear as to whether each side lost 1,000 or if it was 1,000 total. Then, in the side bar, under the Argentinian flag, it says that there were "655 killed" (Argentines); and under the British flag it says there were "255 killed" (Brits). But under the "War ended" section of the article, it says there were "255 British and 635 Argentine soldiers, sailors, and airmen" killed. So there's an inconsistency between whether it was 635 or 655 Argentines killed. Also, I'm not sure whether or not any civilian Brits, Argentinines, and/or Falkland residents were killed. I haven't been able to find an authoritative source for the correct numbers... I'll keep looking around and will correct the article if I find the right data, but in case I don't, I thought I'd better post this note so that someone else can look into it. --Lukecro 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the only civilians killed would have been Merchant Navy personnel on board the Atlantic Conveyor when it was sunk. Guinnog 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * re: Civilians - 3 civilians - backed up by  and about halfway down  Megapixie 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Necessary Evil 18:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * At MoD - 20 years anniversary the butcher bill is: 3 civilian Falklanders, 6 sailors from the Merchant Navy (Britons), 8 Chinese sailors and 4 semi civilian sailors from Royal Fleet Auxiliary.


 * According to the Argentine butcher bill is (the homepage has counted 2 civilians on General Belgrano twice!!):
 * Argentine Army (Ejército Argentino): 194 (16 officers, 35 NCO and 143 conscripts).
 * Argentine Navy (Armada de la República Argentina): 375.
 * Cruiser ARA General Belgrano: 321 (military personnel).
 * Patrol boat ARA Alférez Sobral: 8.
 * Submarine ARA Santa Fe : 1.
 * Transport ARA Isla de los Estados: 5 (military personnel).
 * BIM, Base Islas Malvinas: 1.
 * Infantería de Marina: 34 (Operations Rosario and Corporate).
 * Frigate ARA Cuerrico: 1 (South Georgia).
 * Pilots from COAN: 4 (2 Skyhawks and 2 MB-339).
 * Argentine Air Force (Fuerza Aérea Argentina): 55 (41 aviators).
 * Gendarmería Nacional Argentina: 7.
 * Argentine Coast Guard (Prefectura Naval Argentina): 2.
 * Argentine Civilian Sailors:16.
 * ARA Isla de los Estatos: 13.
 * ARA General Belgrano: 2.
 * Spytrawler Narwal: 1.
 * Total Argentine: 649. Necessary Evil 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Two of the Argentine civilian sailors were naval reserve personnel, so I've changed the numbers a little. Necessary Evil 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the clarifications... Note that the sidebar (near the top left of the article) still appears to list a different casualty number than the (updated) death list in the Wiki article. Sidebar (under "Casualties") says: 746 Argentinians killed; but under the "War ended" subhead and in the 4th paragraph of the main article ("Falklands War") the count is 649. It seems like 649 is is agreed upon number here, for now, but I don't know how to update the sidebar to reflect this -- so if anyone here knows how to update a Wikipedia sidebar, please do (if, that is, it's agreed that it should be updated so that it's consistent with the article). --Lukecro 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand Involvment
Shoulnt there be somthing in this about the friget cantubury sent from new zealand to replace the british one in the indian ocean. (sry about my spelling) --219.88.47.203 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Exocet spiking by British intel
I recall a documentary about the British intelligence services' efforts to buy up any Exocets on the open market and spike them prior to their acquisition by the Argentinian Military, providing a faulty weapon to destroy the most dangerous offensive tactic used. Citation and information needed - any takers? Bigpinkthing 15:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They attempted to buy them, not to damage them, but simply to keep stocks out of Argentine (and Peruvian) hands. I've read a book on this very subject recently - I will add, and cite, tonight when I have the book.--Mig25 foxbat2003 10:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

War Crimes Claim
There is something of an ambiguous/unclear statement in the War Ended section. The last sentence of the first paragraph says "Brigadier-General Oscar Jofre, Commander of the 10th Argentine Mechanized Infantry Brigade, has admitted that the abrupt end of the ground fighting was hastened by fear of war crimes against the civilians." I am unsure of this statement for a couple of reasons. First, it is un-cited. Second, it doesn't say who he was afraid was going to commit said war crimes--the British or the Argentines? It appeared to me on first read that this was non NPOV and borderline libel on the British Army, since it comes from an Argentine Commander. It does seem on second read that he feared war crimes on the part of the Argentine Army, but it remains unclear and should be rectified and cited adequately. Aborrows 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. I've always been uncomfortable with that line. Can whoever wrote it clarify, please? --BadWolf42 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any source neither. I checked the article history and the entry seems to be made on 20 September 2004 by 210.50.182.106. [ history & whois ] so will be hard to clarify (Jor70 12:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)).
 * Duly excised.--BadWolf42 15:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Make it Simpler
Plz cn u make it simpeler. I am making a short film on the falklands war 4 skewl. thanx


 * The conflict occured as the conflict occured. We can no sooner make the situation simpler than we can go back in time and change it. In effect Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands trying to annex them from the United Kingdom who claim them. (Argentina also claim them as their land). The british sent a task for (an army) to regain the islands which did so successfully. The islands were once again restored to British control as they remain to this day. Argentina still claims the islands as theirs. Thats basically the simple version.
 * Plz cn u mk yr rqst simpeler. Eglsh iz gud 4 dis.

Titles of dignitaries
From the Section Task Force there is a paragraph begining; Her Majesty the Queen's son, Prince Andrew ... It seems a little odd to have the Queen given her ceremonial title but not her son, and for that matter why not 'His Excellency the Argentine Ambassador' etc. My feeling is that this gives the text a slightly non-NPOV feeling by seeming to have been written by one of HRH's loyal subject. Perhaps just 'The Queen's son, Prince Andrew' would do the job? Ekilfeather 16:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, agree. Not keen on that exact wording though, how about "Prince Andrew, then second in line to the British throne,..." Megapixie 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done with thanks to Megapixie for correct cross-reference --Ekilfeather 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Water supply
A US Air Force engineer once told me that, even without the British invasion, the Argentine invasion would have been defeated by thirst. This was one of the few times in history that an occupying force was several times as large as the local population; by the end of the war, the supply of fresh water on the islands was nearly depleted. But I've checked a number of books without finding confirmation of this. Do you experts have any info?Dynzmoar 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Edited 5/6/06
Minor edit to remove oversimplification: "Most European countries and the United States supported Britain; most Latin American countries supported Argentina.

I have changed to: Whilst remaining diplomatically neutral, most European countries and the United States supported Britain; many Latin American countries (with the notable exception of Chile) supported Argentina. --Mig25 foxbat2003 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern forces?
From the introduction:

"Militarily, however, it remains important as the only major naval and amphibious operation between modern forces conducted since the Korean War."

How are "modern forces" defined? There's no wiki link to provide more information. Why is Lebanon, for example, not a "modern force"? Shouldn't the sentence read "..between two modern forces"? The United States is presumably a "modern force" and it's been involved in wars with several, I guess, "non-modern" forces since the Korean War.

Basically, it's an unclear and ambigious sentence, and I'll remove it if no one clarifies it. Moncrief 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say it is pretty clear to me “modern forces” is a phrase often used in military history to simply mean a fighting force of the day with good equipment and training.(the argentine forces although having some old equipment and vehicles also had cutting edge plane and missile technology) The Lebanese army definitely cant be considered a modern force as it’s equipment is more like the sort of stuff western armies had in 70's-80's Hezbollah is probably better equipped than the Lebanese army. The US certainly has had many wars since Korea and no I can’t think of any that count as being against modern forces, also im pretty sure none of them involved a major amphibious landing or naval engagement anyway.--Goatan 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Modern forces" may be clear to you, but it isn't necessarily clear to an average reader. Is there an actual term used my the military that provides some sort of objective definition, ideally one with an article that can be linked to?  We should strive for precise definitions and verifiable terminology rather than vague terms that are open to interpretation by non-experts.  Moncrief 13:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think sentence is clear and unambiguous and makes one of the most important points of the article. Between... forces already implies plurality. Both sides employed considerable cutting edge technology with effect. What other interpretations can you make from that sentence? --BadWolf42 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that "modern" should be fleshed out a bit. What constitutes a "modern force"? Where is the dividing line between "modern" and "non-modern"?  I suppose I wish there were a more exact term. "Modern" generally refers to a time period, so I find it a bit ambigious in this case.  I suppose if no one sees my point at all, then I must be a minority of one on that.  A few more words ("technologically advanced" or somesuch) would help to flesh out the sentence for me.  Moncrief 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Modern' meaning using contempory equipment and tactics, rather than, for example, a fleet made exclusively of Belgranos. Exocet, the T42s, the Mirage and Daggers were all bang up to date, and only a few of the British frigates were previous generation (Hermes and the LPDs being old, but their equipment and deployment up to date). Modern does indeed refer to the time period, and therefore it seems the correct, and industry standard, word to me.--BadWolf42 10:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you're naming that equipment as proof of your understanding demonstrates to me that you're not getting what I'm saying. The reader new to this topic doesn't know what those things are. I'm interested in the readibility of this article for the average reader, not for an expert on the military or military technology.  "Modern forces" isn't a particularly useful term to me as a reader new to this topic. Or at least I have a sense of it but wonder what it's supposed to mean exactly.  It's a sweeping statement to say that the FW is the only large-scale conflict between modern forces since the Korean War, and so as a reader I wish there were more information (even two or three words!) letting me know what "modern forces" are. That's all.  Moncrief 13:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say that it's the only large-scale conflict between modern forces, it says it's the only major naval and amphibious conflict between modern forces since Korea. Which others would you like to name?


 * Additionally, do you really need to define modern to the casual reader? We can do if you wish, but doesn't modernforces insult the reader's intelligence? It's not a technical term, it's not even a bit of jargon. It's a standard pair of English words being used in their conventional sense.


 * We don't define large meal or loose trousers. How large does the meal need to be to be considered large? How loose must the trousers be before they're loose trousers? The reader is able to parse such qualified information himself. --BadWolf42 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shortening article by putting trivia/cruft into separate article
79kb long, clearly too big. We need to put the trivia into its own article, the Argentina impact, the UK impact and artistic treatments. Skinnyweed 19:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)