Talk:Falklands War/Archive 12

Anniversary
I've put a topic on the Milhist talk page to see if anyone's interested in expanding and improving this article with an eye to getting it to GA status before the anniversary next year. It'll probably receive a bit of attention then. Ranger Steve  Talk  21:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck, it will have my support, but you can expect a lot of problems in doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Every time there is a Falklands War anniversary the world is flooded with "My part of the war"-books. They write about their own experiences, which probably is correct. But they also describe the general picture taken from newspapers from the eighties or what they were told in 1982. Some Wikipedians will then in good faith change this article back to the old misconceptions (e.g. 368 lost their lives with General Belgrano), based on the 30th anniversary books. So keep you pencils ready! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Improving the article
I was surprised by the obvious problems with this article, given how prominent the Falklands War remains in the UK and in Argentina. While military history is not generally my area, I am familiar with the Falklands conflict, and would suggest the following changes.

1) The article needs to loose a lot of the military terminology, abbreviations and references to equipment.

"Rapier missile launchers were carried as underslung loads of Sea Kings for rapid deployment."

"Major Mario Castagneto's 601st Commandos tried to move forward on Kawasaki motorbikes and commandeered Land Rovers to rescue 602nd Commando Company on Estancia Mountain."

We do not need to know the model of helicoptor or motorbike used here; it isn't really relevant. This goes for a lot of the content in the article. Weapon models only really need to be mentioned when they have an outcome on the operations, in my opinion. Otherwise, one ends up with an article that is confusing to a non-military historian.

Here is an example of relevant detail re: equipment:

"During this battle, 13 were killed when HMS Glamorgan, straying too close to shore while returning from the gun line, was struck by an improvised trailer-based Exocet MM38 launcher taken from the destroyer ARA Seguí by Argentine Navy technicians.[75]"

2) Military abbreviations, such as SAM, AAB, AAA, 2ic, UXB, are confusing for the non-specialist and should be removed.

3) This article needs a lot of its statements referencing from books rather than online, even something like the Hastings/Jenkins book would be a good start.

4) Some potentially controversial statements, such as the statement below in Landing at San Carlos-Bomb Alley needs to be properly referenced or deleted, as a matter of priority:

"Jones had threatened to lead the prosecution of senior BBC officials for treason but was unable to do so since he was himself killed in action around Goose Green."

5) I would suggest breaking the War section down into more manageable chunks eg Naval operations, British land campaign

6) Less prominence needs to go to the SAS and special forces.

"For the next week, the SAS and the Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre (M&AWC) of 3 Commando Brigade waged intense patrol battles with patrols of the volunteers' 602nd Commando Company under Major Aldo Rico, normally 2IC of the 22nd Mountain Infantry Regiment. Throughout 30 May, Royal Air Force Harriers were active over Mount Kent. One of them, Harrier XZ963, flown by Squadron Leader Jerry Pook—in responding to a call for help from D Squadron, attacked Mount Kent's eastern lower slopes, and that led to its loss through small-arms fire. Pook was subsequently awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.[65]"

The "SAS/elite forces" myth does not need to be fuelled further by this article. What is an intense patrol battle? A skirmish? The sections on special forces occupy greater space than the Fall of Stanley! Again, special forces should be reduced to actions of importance eg destroying aircraft on Pebble Island. While I do not doubt that the special forces' contribution to the conflict was important, it should not unduly occupy space in the article at the expense of greater concision or more detailled ofcus on other areas.

I would like to invite other users to discuss improvements and so on here. Bits of the article, eg the public relations section, are good. While I personally do not have time to edit this article, such feedback may be helpful to whoever takes it on. Good luck! Jnorthdur (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Many people are interested in how and when what materiel is used in a conflict, saying "Rapier missile launchers" (and preferably linking the first use) is more informative and takes up similar space as "Anti aircraft missile launchers". Same for "Sea King" and "helicopter".
 * 2. Military abbreviations should also have the full version included on first use, and a wikilink to their article. Removing them entirely would be less informative.
 * 3. Agreed. Referencing could be improved.
 * 4. Agreed.
 * 5. Agreed, a great idea.
 * 6. This should be reviewed.
 * ( Hohum  @ ) 03:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Agree. In some cases, the weapons decided the outcome of a confrontation and then the differences should be showed (eg Belgrano-Conqueror). But as the article in Wikipedia is written as an introduction to the theme for an universal reader and not for an historian, I plead for less details in the description in favour of a better understanding of the complete war.
 * 2. a generally understandable name of the weapon with a wikilink to the resp. article is a posible solution. Removing them entirely would be less informative.
 * 3. Agreed. Referencing could be improved.
 * 4. Agreed to remove this sentence: "Jones had threatened...". Which others?
 * 5. Agreed. I suggest "1 Deployment", "2 First Contact(?)", "3 Landing", "4 Marsh", "4 Stanley". We can also repeat the sections used in books.
 * 6. Agree.
 * I support Jnorthdur ideas. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Following sentence seems to be incomplete:
 * The Madres de Plaza de Mayo were even exposed to death threats from ordinary people.[14]

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it used to refer to the fact they were threatened as unpatriotic for continuing to protest against the Junta. It was a reference to the adulation the Junta received immediately after the invasion, which innoculated them against criticism. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Position of third party countries
I supported the inclusion of the section about "Position of third party countries" but it has become to a lawless sandbox for testing the limits of Wikipedia. It is necessary to re-establish the rules of Wikipedia in the "list". I want to show only two cases:
 * "aircraft spare parts" seem to be not very releveant to the story
 * Spanish abstain in the UN-security council: it was for or against what? Argentina or Britain?

Such anarchy can't be continued and I would like that you get involved in the changes I will do.

I propose to init the section with a briefly introduction to describe the international arena at the time of the war and the to separate the sheep from the goats.

Proposed introduction:
 * The war was an unexpected event in a world strained by the cold war and the North-South divide. The response of some countries was the effort to mediate the crisis and later as the war began, the support (or criticism) based in terms of anti-colonialism, political solidarity, historical relationships or realpolitik. Sometimes, it was kept secret from the press, and often enough was "concealed from senior members of both governments, to prevent embarrassment." In other cases it was only verbal support.

We should discriminate between military, economical and verbal support. To list together all kinds of backing suggests that all efforts had the same costs for the supporter and the same efficiency for the beligerants. It wasn't.

Proposed description:
 * ''In the United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 the United Kingdom received political support from the: Zaire, Guyana, Ireland, Jordan, Japan, Togo, France and the USA. Argentina received political support from Panama. China, Poland, Spain and the Soviet Union abstained.


 * ''Furthermore, Argentina was politically backed by a majority of countries in Latin America and the Non-Aligned_Movement. The UK received political support from the Commonwealth of Nations and the European Economic Community. The latter provided also economic support by imposing economic sanctions on Argentina


 * ''An important factor was of course the military support. The USA provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles.   France provided dissimilar aircraft training allowing Harrier pilots to train against French aircraft used by Argentina. French and British intelligence also worked to prevent Argentina from obtaining more Exocets on the international market. Chile gave support to Britain in the form of Intelligence about Argentine military and radar early warning.


 * ''Argentina was supported by Israeli IAI advisors. They were already in the country and continued their work during the conflict. The purshase of weapons was triagulated over Perú   Through Libya, under Muammar Gaddafi, Argentina received 20 launchers and 60 missiles SA-7 and other weapons as machine guns, mortars and mines, all in all, the load of four trips of two Boeing 707 of the AAF, refuelled in Recife with the knowledge and consent of the Brasilian government. According to Cristina Fernández, Perú sent "Mirages, Pilots and missiles" to Argentina during the war.


 * References

Verbal support should not be described. It would take to long. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have refactored to show references as they are also important. The youtube video is a problem as wikipedia doesn't link to copyright violations. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If this is intended as a replacement for the existing bullet point list, I say go ahead - looks good to me (assuming that all of the content is covered by the sources). O(n that point though, it would be nice to see refs for the first and second paragraphs. I have one slight issue with a little bit on un-encyclopaedic writing though (struck through above). Ranger Steve   Talk  13:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Military support to Argentina is severely reduced in the proposed text. If that is because of lack of sources, I can undertake to look for them later (I have to go now). Here you have one about the Lybian armament (which it seems it was more than just Strelas): http://www.diarioperfil.com.ar/edimp/0551/articulo.php?art=27476&ed=0551 --Langus (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The newspaper article states that:
 * 15 misiles aire-aire 530 calorías, cinco aire-aire 530 radares, veinte aire-aire 550 junto con veinte motores, veinte lanzadores portátiles tierra aire SA-7 Grail/Strela-2 con sesenta proyectiles, diez morteros de 60 mm con accesorios y 492 proyectiles, diez de 81 mm con accesorios, 498 proyectiles súper-explosivos y 198 iluminantes. A su vez, se enviaron mil bombas iluminantes de 26,5 mm, cincuenta ametralladores calibre 50 mm con 49.500 proyectiles, 4 mil minas antitanque y 5 mil antipersonales

I added the main content to the proposal above and also about Peruvian support. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the best refrence is, for Peru as well as Israel. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit is very good, especially the introduction. Jnorthdur (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jnorthdur. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Luke96241,

I reverted your contribution because NZ's political support is already included in the Commonwealth sentence. Regarding the ship, we have to refrain from adding a lot of interesting details around the military support in order to keep track of the main events. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hope no-one minds, but as I've worked my way through the article, I've changed it a bit again. I've opened the section with the UN Security Council stuff (which has also been streamlined - the article on the act possess enough specific info). The original opening para is second now and given the content and reference, it might be better folded into the 3rd paragraph, as the info is largely talking about the same thing. The first 2 sentences of the second para are also unreferenced - does anyone have one? Ranger Steve   Talk  10:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all, if you can give me a better idea of what you think needs referencing I'm sure I can provide one. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ranger Steve, you improved the subsection, but anyway I would say that:
 * the mention of the UK's ambassadors name is superfluous
 * the names of the countries for/against/abstained in Security Council, quite the contrary, very important for the History, they should be mentioned at least in a footnote.
 * However, when Argentina refused sounds biased. I would prefer as Haig didn't get an agreement from both parties.... --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger, given that Argentina did refuse but the UK didn't, this isn't biased but your suggestion would be. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Peru or Perú
MOS:FOREIGN says:
 * The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines.

English sources almost always use Peru without the accent. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see my edited was temporarily reverted. Just to be clear: the accented spelling is not an option and it is not "acceptable". English Wikipedia adopts standard English spellings where variations exist. Please see Naming conventions (geographic names) for more details. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WCM:::I refer you to the final words of the sentence above "their usage depends on ... the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines". Such guidelines exist: "Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different. If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it." Incidentally, that list includes an example that differs only in the existence of a diacritic so there's really no ambiguity. Besides, the non-English spelling makes the article inconsistent: it doesn't say Panamá or Brasil. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not "WCM", and I'm agreeing with you. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I'm afraid I mistakenly believed I was reading two comments, one unsigned. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually it is acceptable, I think it is improper to anglicise names where the original is so close to the English. Its not as if its in anyway confusing and especially in an article that has significant Spanish interest.  Its neither encouraged not discouraged and has been acceptable practise for some time.  I commend you for following WP:BRD and bringing it to the talk page nontheless but I disagree with the premise.  Your assertion that it is unacceptable is clearly wrong.  We will see what others think.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The guidelines that say accenting is neither encouraged nor discouraged go on to say that usage depends on what is standard in English. Other guidelines confirm this by saying that we use standard English spellings, rather than giving places their foreign names. There's an exact parallel in the MOS guideline that clearly states the spelling Aragón is unacceptable, where spelling differs only in a single diacritic. We also have four users who disagree with you. Surely that's enough. --Lo2u (T • C) 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A) I'm not edit warring to impose my personal opinion and B) consensus is about strength of argument not a vote. Lets see what others think shall we?  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer Perú, but the main page is named Peru. I think this issue should be resolved first in the main page, not here. Please, perfect is enough, don't exaggerate your perfectionism. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WCM. Ok, Strength of argument. English sources overwhelmingly use Peru without an accent. This is the English encyclopedia. Do you have anything other than "the original is close" and "there is a Spanish interest". Both seem purely your preference rather than wider community opinion per the guidance already stated. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already indicated my willingness to listen to other opinions and I believe my argument was a little more cogent than you suggest. The community opinion is that either is acceptable - as you yourself note above.  I just don't see it as something getting worked up about - though it would have been simpler had WP:BRD been followed.  Wee Curry Monster talk 00:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Never seen Peru written with an accent in any English print. Peru without accent is the WP:COMMONNAME of the state and should be used above personal preference. Mabuska (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WCM, you appear to be cherry picking half a sentence from the guideline. There is no blanket preference for accents, there *is* a preference for what English sources use, accent or not. In this case, clearly not. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I failed to notice your reply, I don't see this as cherry picking and I didn't claim there is a blanket preference either way. This is one example of guidelines conflicting and I'm quite happy for a consenus to emerge and follow it, even if I personally disagree with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes by Clarityfiend
Clarityfiend made following changes :

Case A: was changed to It is not the same "aircraft" than "dissimilar aircfart training". I think the old version were correct
 * ''France provided dissimilar aircraft training allowing Harrier pilots to train against French aircraft used by Argentina.
 * ''France provided aircraft, allowing Harrier pilots to train against French aircraft like those possessed by Argentina.

Case B: was changed to Chile didn't provide radar systems.
 * ''Chile gave support to Britain in the form of Intelligence about Argentine military and radar early warning.
 * ''Chile provided Britain with intelligence about Argentine military and radar early warning systems.

Case C: what is unclear?
 * ''triangulated over Peru

Case D:
 * ''all in all, requiring four trips of two Boeing 707s of the AAF

what is unclear? AAF? replaced. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I presume AAF is Argentine Air Force, given the discrepancies in meaning I've reverted out those changes. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Public relations
What is the evidence that the RN wanted positive coverage? Did not the government in fact want such coverage? Surely references to British and Argentine troops is not inconsistent with positive coverage. Where did the "our lads" and the "dehumanised Argies" come from - I doubt the Royal Navy wanted those to be the normal terms for the participants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "What is the evidence that the RN wanted positive coverage?" = Harris, Robert, GOTCHA! The Media, the Government and the Falklands Crisis. Faber and Faber, 1983: "You must have been told you couldn't report bad news ...You were expected to do a 1940 propaganda job."
 * 2): "the Argentinians, who had been dehumanised by the name 'Argies'"; not "dehumanised Argies". The NAME 'Argies' was dehumanising, like Krauts for Germans in WWII etc. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How does that extract prove the *RN* wanted positive coverage, it doesn't seem specific to the RN. In fact, it doesn't specify anyone. Some context for the quote please? ( Hohum  @ ) 23:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @124.197.15.138 you're mixing two statements; Royal Navy never specified that Argentines should be called "Argies", it was The Sun who did it on its own accord. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV
WeeCurryMonster it would appear doesn't seems to feel that the following phrase "whilst The Sun became notorious for its jingoistic and xenophobic headlines" doesn't violate WP:WEASEL or WP:NPOV and should be kept in use in place of "some more controversial headlines" which was added in by an IP, which WCM reverted.

Firstly are the words actually attributable to the source at the end of the sentence? If so then it should be worded as such to make it clear that it is an writers opinion or quotes from a writer and not a general overall opinion as is currently the look of it. If they are not then due to WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV they should be removed and replaced with words along the lines of what the IP added. I find WCM's stance in this puzzling.

Mabuska (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they are from the source, nor do I see it as a NPOV since the Sun's coverage was both jingoistic and xenophobic. I would also suggest you do not personalise matters and focus on content instead of pointing fingers.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) I've had said "more controversial headlines" was the more weasel phrasing given that the Sun under McKenzie's period as editor has been described as "xenophobic, bloody-minded, ruthless, often reckless". There is also the ambiguity of British idiom when using "more xxxx" as an understatement" eg if Pope Pope Innocent VIII described Tomás de Torquemada as "one of the more enthusiastic members of the Spanish clergy". GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Many 2012-Britons, like 92.22.148.144 from Manchester, cannot comprehend that a free newspaper from a democratic country could bee "jingoistic and xenophobic". But the Sun was... In World War Two it was unpatriotic not to describe the enemy as monsters, but not in 1982. Changing it to "some more controversial headlines" would be improper use of quotation, and water down this article. Readers of 2012 will be misguided if euphemistic phrases replaces the truth. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * WCM i am focusing on content, your very response is showing that you are letting emotions come into it. Regardless of whether the Sun is jingoistic and xenophobic or not is personal opinion which should be avoided. If the phrasing as you insist is in the source, then failing the providing of more independent sources that also make the same claims, it should be reworded/reformatted to show it's the words of that writer. Something like: "according to Robert Harris, The Sun became "notorious for its jingoistic and xenophobic headlines", including its 20 April headline "Stick It Up Your Junta!". (if that is a direct quote from the book). That is more the essence of WP:NPOV and avoids the possibility of WP:WEASEL.
 * Lets not mention the fact it may violate WP:WEIGHT due to lack of sources attributed to it, and the fact the source is quite dated having being published in 1983. Mabuska (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike Storry and Peter Childs, British Cultural Identities (Psychology Press, 2002), Page 14, section on "xenophobia": "This happens instantly, and newspapers can rally support against an 'enemy' overnight. In 1981, the Sun orchestrated hatred for 'the Argies' over the Falklands conflict. Most Sun readers were unaware where the Falkland Islands were, but they rose to the invitation to be xenophobic anyway."
 * Philip Taylor, "From Psychological Warfare to Information Operations and Back Again," in The Ashgate Research Companion to Modern Warfare, edited by George Kassimeris and John Buckley, Page 425: ("The Falklands conflict was no different, although the excessively jingoistic headlines of The Sun newspaper ('UP YOURS GALTIERI!', 'ARGIE BARGEY' and 'GOTCHA') resulted in a downturn in readership."
 * I hope this helps. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 07:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first quote you provide does not call the Sun xenophobic and requires a bit of interpretation to get at the that. The second quote however is clear and exact enough for the term "jingoistic" in regards to the Sun. Mabuska (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first quote is difficult to understand without reading the section "Xenophobia" from the start. We could take it to the RSN or Language Board to see what they get out of it. I suppose better sources exist, nonetheless. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 13:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The headlines are probably jingoistic but there's nothing that I would understand as "xenophobic" in either of those quoted in the article. As it stands, the article is a long way from presenting a neutral point of view, even if the opinion of those authors is correctly summarised. Given the rather contentious nature of a claim that the Sun was guilty of these things, it's acceptable to report these views but not to state them as fact. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I reworded, while preserving the assertion of jingoism and xenophobia. The tone of this is a long way from impartial, even if the Sun probably was jingoistic. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with the rewording, trying to pretend such accusations didn't exist citing WP:NPOV was the problem. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand that. Do you object to my rewording? I'm happy to discuss. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No sorry if my meaning was unclear, I don't object in the slightest and regard it as an improvement. What I objected to was the original premise that such comments violated WP:NPOV or even WP:WEASEL when in fact they simply reflected what was many people's opinion at the time and since.  I trust this is clear?   Wee Curry Monster talk 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, yes. My fault, I should have understood the first time. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WCM please don't convolute other editors intents. I never pretended such accusations didn't exist or weren't valid and i suggest you keep your personal politics out of discussions as well as what can well be considered baseless opinion (quote: "when in fact they simply reflected what was many people's opinion at the time and since"). The wording as it was was strongely suggestive of breeching WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Whilst the re-wording is better than what was there, it is still light on sources to show it has WP:WEIGHT. If your claim is the opinion of many people, then sources shouldn't be a problem. Note how i am not objecting to its inclusion at all - just the manner of it based on the sources so far produced. After all we must adhere to the already stated polciies as well as WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE and all that mumbo-jumbo. Mabuska (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So often when we make remarks about others, we reveal our own motivations by projecting them onto others. This is nothing to do with my personal politics and I originally objected to the edit myself as the archive shows.  Note I commented on content and logic not editors.  Now unless you have a substantive point to raise I see no point in further dicussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the bad faith you displayed a few comments back that stoked my bad faith in response. So i'd suggest you also keep to commenting on content and not editors. None-the-less i have raised substantative points to do with Wiki policies and if you wish to forego any further discussion on it then by all means, we can continue on without you. Now would you care to discuss the points on the content i raised in my last comment as after all it did contain content and logic comments as well as editor comments. Mabuska (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, you can have the last word. I don't see any substantive points to do with Wiki policies. Regarding weight, few books on the Falklands War don't comment on the Sun's coverage in pretty much the same manner as the article. As regards WP:V, well it is cited to a WP:RS so rather than a substantive point, it is an empty complaint mentioning policy. As far as I can see this is no more than a case of WP:IDONTLIKE. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again i suggest that you follow your own advice in regards to commenting on content and not editors.
 * How exactly is anything i've said WP:IDONTLIKE? What exactly do you think i am saying or proposing? Are you even reading the discussion at all? You keep coming out of with personal opinion without any evidence for your viewpoints and statements? For example: "Regarding weight, few books on the Falklands War don't comment on the Sun's coverage in pretty much the same manner as the article." - "pretty much the same manner" is hardly verifiable or academic considering you fail to produce once again sources to prove your points.
 * I made a change to the article that is hardly controversial taking into account that only one source is used to prove the statement. The change simply attributes the statement to the actual author of the source - a simple way to address the above policy issues i mentioned. Mabuska (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, well I have read the discussion and your demand to remove material does not have consensus, nor does your attempt to water it down by presenting it as the opinion of a single author. You also appear to have missed the fact that I originally opposed this and are proceeding on your presumption of my opinion.  I merely mention WP:IDONTLIKE because you appear very angry about this for some reason and seem to be taking it very personally.  Now if youy wish to discuss content fine but don't disrupt the article to make your point, especially whilst others are trying to improve it.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that User:Mabuska has changed his post after I replied to it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually i was editing it before you left a response, however for some reason an edit-conflict never came up when i hit submit which should of came up. However for posterity here is what i originally had when WCM left a response. The only difference is a minor tone down and addition of an extra arguement or two. Also seeing as there is only a minute (quite probavbly less in real-time) difference between my edit and your reply - do you really think i can change my comment that quickly and precisely in a matter of seconds intentionally?
 * Other than that please stop distorting other editors comments as you are continually doing. Also please don't try to mislead other editors. For example
 * You originally opposed what exactly? You never beforehand opposed the change i recently made as of today - you opposed the re-wording of the sentence made by the IP that i reverted your revert of several days ago. Completely different change.
 * How is that edit disruptive? No-one opposed to it and it is more balanced than implying a wider held opinion backed up by a single source.
 * How is the edit anymore disruptive than that made by Lo2u? His was an undiscussed edit too that "watered" it down.
 * Where is this explicit demand i've made that it must be removed? This is a gross distortion of my original comment that unless it was sourced it should be removed. You have since made it clear that it is with the attached source.
 * Mabuska (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also add in this point:
 * "Undid revision 475224609 by Mabuska (talk) rv per talk - no this is not just the opinion of a single author" - where is your evidence at? You've only provided personal opinion that it is a commonly held opinion. If it is then surely you have evidence. Mabuska (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MarshalN20 showed us other sources than Robert Harris, so it's not just the opinion of a single author. Furthermore you statement "the fact the source is quite dated having being published in 1983." is rather odd. The Sun's headlines were accessible to anyone in 1983, as well as today. When secret military documents become declassified, old books can get outdated. But here Robert Harris compared the media coverage, which is quite public. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those sources were already commented upon above. Mabuska (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you asked for evidence i.e. other authors than Robert Harris. MarshalN20 provided us with e.g. George Kassimeris & John D. Buckley. You seems to have forgotten it 5 February. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Kelvin MacKenzie, now sources have already been provided and you're still quibbling but just a few more and no they weren't difficult to find.
 * John Pilger (1998), Hidden Agendas, Vintage, pp. 445–449
 * Mike Storry and Peter Childs, British Cultural Identities (Psychology Press, 2002), Page 14, section on "xenophobia": "This happens instantly, and newspapers can rally support against an 'enemy' overnight. In 1981, the Sun orchestrated hatred for 'the Argies' over the Falklands conflict. Most Sun readers were unaware where the Falkland Islands were, but they rose to the invitation to be xenophobic anyway."
 * Philip Taylor, "From Psychological Warfare to Information Operations and Back Again," in The Ashgate Research Companion to Modern Warfare, edited by George Kassimeris and John Buckley, Page 425: ("The Falklands conflict was no different, although the excessively jingoistic headlines of The Sun newspaper ('UP YOURS GALTIERI!', 'ARGIE BARGEY' and 'GOTCHA') resulted in a downturn in readership."
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Quite a good summary of the coverage. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite a good summary of the coverage. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Was it that hard to provide sources? If you had of done that at the start rather than persist with bad faith and distortion of other editors comments then this issue would of been sorted long ago. I've added these sources into the article as well as made it clear that it was not just the Sun that is alleged to be xenophobic etc. Two questions though: why repeat the source we've already agreed upon and where in this source backs up your claims? It doesn't and i hope it's not a case of arguementum verbosium. However those questions are irrelevant as there are now actually some sources here we can add to the article to back up the statement. Mabuska (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks to Mabuska the explicit words "xenophobia" and "jingoism" have been heavily peppered with sources. Hopefully they will now remain standing and Wikipedia's readers will be spared for negationism. But IMHO the rewording should have waited until this debate was settled. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I would just like to inform anyone involved in the dispute over the infobox that there is currently a Mediation Cabal case taking place about the issue here. We would like anyone who is not already involved who has something to add to take part. If you do, please first read & sign the ground rules and the provide an opening statement. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So, we have a MedCab closed without agreement. Quoting ItZippy, consensus seems to be in favor of including Margaret Thatcher, but right now we don't even have the discussed section in the infobox. Were do we go from here? --Langus (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Err, no, the MedCab specifically said Zippy should not have stated that and it compromised mediation. The position is we grow up and discuss the matter without the crap that meant discussion was compromised before.  Wee Curry Monster talk 23:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you link to where it says that please? Ranger Steve   Talk  07:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its on the main MedCab talk page Steve and Zippy's talk page. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting to see there were some side discussions that no-one else was notified of. Anyway, I still don't see anything that "specifically said Zippy should not have stated that and it compromised mediation.". Can you elaborate on how you've reached this conclusion? Ranger Steve   Talk  09:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They were announced in the mediation page and its there in black and white. I don't see the point in indulging in a semantic argument with you because I have used slightly different wording.  Wee Curry Monster talk 10:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then please provide a link or diff, because I really can't see it. Ranger Steve   Talk  10:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster talk 10:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right... this is a non specific discussion, between editors who confess they haven't read the case, and it isn't on the case page. You really need to elaborate on how that "specifically said Zippy should not have stated that and it compromised mediation", whether you want to indulge in semantics or not. Ranger Steve   Talk  10:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No I don't, nor do I intend to. Mediation finished due to lost interest.  Do you wish to restart it? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where in that diff does it say the mediation was compromised? Where does it say specifically that it shouldn't be done? Where does it specify this mediation case? It doesn't support your conclusion at all.  Ranger Steve   Talk  10:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you wish to restart mediation? Its a yes or no answer.  I have no intention of wasting time on pointless bickering.  Wee Curry Monster talk 10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you answer my question first, rather than avoiding it? Understanding of your position will affect my response. Ranger Steve   Talk  11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion request
You may be interested to follow commons:Commons:Deletion requests/PD-AR-Photo de la Guerra de Malvinas. Photos taken in Argentina in 1982 are in the PD in Argentina, but not in the US, and may need to be deleted. Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC) (wilikink improved. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC))
 * So what you're saying is that useful Commons images should be transferred to en.wiki as Non-free media? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, non-free images have requirements that free images in Commons do not have. They must be used in at least one article, only in articles, they must have a valid rationale, they can't be used for identification of living people, a given article may not have too many non-free images, etc. The images are nominated in Commons because of the recent outcome of the URAA discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, sure - I wasn't suggesting that we should convert the Argentine photos en masse. All I said was that if some of the photos were important enough to be used as Non-free images, with the restrictions you mentioned, we should do it now. Because when they have been deleted at Commons, it'll be too late. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if nobody provides a reason to counter the reason for deletion, it may be possible to request to delay the actual deletion until the selection and move of images that may be uploaded as non-free is finished. There are hundreds of images around in jeopardy because of the recent URAA thing, leaving them around for a while shouldn't be problematic. And even if someone rushes to delete the files, I'm administrator and may retrieve deleted files and upload them here if requested.
 * By the way, have in mind that this URAA thing is a huge thing. Basically, all users interested in non-US topics of the XX century should check the status of the images used, and if they are at risk then begin to migrate images if possible before they are deleted. The Argentine military junta is another topic whose images may be mass-nominated, but that's a hard work for another day (making mass deletion requests is a long and tedious work) Cambalachero (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Galtieri.jpg or File:FotoOficialGaltieri.jpg might be useful at Leopoldo Galtieri, File:Fotoametralladora Dagger Malvinas.jpg seems irreplaceable by present photos and File:Exocet ITB.jpg explains it better than a thousand words. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg too. I made a request that whoever closes the DR do not delete the images immediately, but after a week, giving time to select and upload here the desired images. But I wouldn't advise to upload the images here under non-free exceptions before the DR is closed: even if unlikely, it is plausible that someone may provide a legal reasoning that may allow to keep the images in Commons (after all, I'm no lawyer, I can easily be proved mistaken in legal issues by someone who is). It would be rude to act as if the DR was a closed discussion when it isn't, for the same reason that we don't go unlinking articles nominated at AFD before they are actually deleted. Cambalachero (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I declined this deletion request for the moment, as Wikipedia in Spanish is currently discussing if they will allow or not the use of local uploads. Still, the images will be deleted from Commons at some point, and by then it would be better to have an idea of which ones should be kept here as well Cambalachero (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused (easily done). "Photos taken in Argentina in 1982 are in the PD in Argentina, but not in the US, and may need to be deleted." - Surely (most of?) these images weren't taken in Argentina, but in the Falklands. ( Hohum  @ ) 01:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a very good question. Which copyright law applies for photos taken in the islands during the Argentine rule? The Argentine copyright law (PD 25 years after published), or the British one (PD 70 years after author's death)? I would think that the Argentine one, but that can be a very tricky, biased and disputed deletion request (and the real world context is not exactly helpful). Feel free to start it (it's completely unrelated to the URAA issue of the initial comment), but be ready for a hell of a discussion Cambalachero (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster
In removing a clause of content about French support for Argentina, you also deleted this relevant reference, entitled "How France helped both sides in the Falklands War": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975. As an alternative to deleting the relevant reference outright, how about restoring it with a clause of content you can accept? -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * France didn't support Argentina, your source makes that plain, it is also plain that it was individuals disobeying the instruction of their country's Government that were responsible. Feel free to suggest an edit here in talk before putting it into the article if you feel it merits coverage but it should reflect your source not personal opinion.  My personal opinion per WP:NOTNEWS much of it is irrelevant and about the only thing you might think of adding, is that the Exocet was inoperational until those individuals disobeyed instructions to help the Argentines. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed the reference, it could waste a lot of time if I keep trying variations until we find one that you accept; it makes more sense for you to propose one that you are happy with, per normal consensus editing procedure. Incidentally, the BBC item is a history piece based on evidence, not a news report. Moreover it says "France helped both sides in the Falklands War", that is clearly not my personal opinion but what the verifiable source states. You appear to have suggested I added personal opinion, in which case are you certain that your personal opinion is not an issue here? If we can't find a solution, let's get a WP:3O and not waste more time than this is worth. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except your source makes it plain that the French Government did not support Argentina, that help was there before the war and that contrary to the instructions of the French Government individuals decided off their own back to assist. Don't play semantic games with the headlines the source DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR EDIT (emphasis added) it your edit was directly contradicted by your source.  And again its a news report, from a current affairs programme, so quit playing semantics.  I see little of interest, other than the Argentines managed to get it to work with minor help from the French team in country who were not authorised to do what they did.  The edit is still in the history - and I am not proposing an edit as I don't believe the content is particularly relevant other than a very small part.  Wee Curry Monster talk 23:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it easy, I'm not playing anything, and I am working in good faith. Let's see if some outside opinion helps. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems I jumped into the middle of this unintentionally, having not read this page before independently adding my bit about the French technical team. I trust my version is acceptable. 121.45.201.66 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw it, your edit was fine. The text was neutral and reflected the source.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

War?
War was never declared, it was a conflict. There is no such event as The Falklands War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.83.241 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You try telling that to the whole British public, which uses the term all the time. There is no doubt that (a) this was a war; (b) wars do not have to be declared to be wars; (c) regardless of the foregoing, the name is the one commonly used; and (d) you are being overly pedantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.172.253 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please use the search function at the top of the page to check the archives before bringing up issues which have already been discussed many times. For instance: Talk:Falklands_War/Archive_10. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See the article Declaration of war, it has some info about the concept. This war is not the only one that was never declared. Cambalachero (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Management of the UK media in 1982. Pulling of the last episode of "I Remember Nelson" 1982
Hello. This is my first contribution on Wiki. I am English, and was at uni in 1982. I remember the war, or conflict, clearly. I was 20. One incident sticks in my mind. The ITV network was running a rather good historical series in the spring of 82, called "I remember Nelson". Was basically a historical drama. it was realistic and pulled no punches, for the television standards of the time. The last episode, featuring the death of Nelson and the battle of Trafalgar, was due to be aired in the first week of may. However TVS, the local sation that served Kent, where I was living at the time,and the south coast as far as Portsmouth in Hants, actually pulled the episode from screening. When the programme slot came up, an announcer stated via audio that the programme would be showed at a later date, due to the current conflict. I think the word morale was actually used. It was around 9pm It was usually aired. I am unsure whether this was a local decision made by the now long-defunct TVS network, or whether it was dicated by some government agency. Is there a place for this somewhere? it would be an interesting cultural impact or morale item if it is relevant to the completeness of the article(s). No way am I going to mess with editing, as I cannot find a verifiable source yet. But it did happen. I was in front of the TV that night and clearly remember it. It seemed rather surreal, and a bit ominous. The Sheffield had been sunk less than a couple of days or so before, I seem to recall.. This did have an impact. I think we lost 2 Harriers on the same day. There were some jitters at the time on the home front, it cannot be denied. It seemed an enormous task back then. The entire period was the only time that I have felt the country was truly "at war". If I can find a source, is there a place for this incident? Any thoughts anyone? Irondome (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Suez
Shouldn't the article mention this was the first time the UK had acted alone since the Suez Crisis in November 1956? (92.7.23.87 (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Except that Britain didn't act alone in the Suez Crisis but jointly with Israel and France. Apcbg (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant this was the first time the UK had launched a military operation without allies since the imposed ending to the Suez Crisis ended its role as a world power. It was also the only time since Suez that the UK had acted without the permission of the Americans, who only decided to support the operation after the task force had been sent. (92.7.23.87 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC))

EEC embargo
From the sources below it is clear to me that Italy and Ireland opposed in some way to the EEC embargo:

Falklands War timeline:
 * 9th April	European Economic Community approve economic sanctions against Argentina (Ireland and Italy veto)
 * 10th April	EEC sanctions against Argentina come into effect (against wishes of Italy and Ireland) <---(I copy-pasted this)

OAS Resolution 2, 29 May 1982:
 * "...The coercive measures that are not based on present international law and are harmful to the Argentine people, carried out by the European Economic Community - with the exception of Ireland and Italy - and by other industrialised States, is continuing..."

Des intérêts difficilement conciliables: l’Italie, l’Europe et la crise des Falkland (avril-juin 1982):
 * "At the outbreak of the Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina, in the spring of 1982, the government led by Giovanni Spadolini supported the EEC embargo against the imports from the South American country that had provoked the crisis. Due to the strong economic interests and the important Italian presence in Argentina, however, the majority of Italy’s political parties forced the government to abandon the embargo"

My attempt to include this information was rejected as misleading. If there's a way to include this, I believe it would be most relevant for the section in question ("Position of third party countries").

Regards. --Langus (t) 03:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So in addition to being misleading, you actually committed a copyright violation? Were either to have vetoed the embargo it would not have happened.  That Ireland chose not to continue with the embargo for reasons of antipathy and Italy chose for economic reasons both did impose an embargo.  Classicly you're taking something out of context to produce an edit that is misleading.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * a) You're assuming bad faith, b) even if "vetoed" is being misused in the source, I purposely avoided that word in my edit; and c) I believe that copying an expression of 6 words can't be regarded as "copyright violation"...
 * My point is, if "Ireland chose not to continue with the embargo for reasons of antipathy and Italy chose for economic reasons" this is interesting information that adds to the article. --Langus (t) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK anyone who rejects your edit for a rational reason ie that its misleading and that its a copy'n'paste copyright violation is "assuming bad faith". IMHO its too much detail for an overview.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I ask for some clarification on what you're wanting to say please?
 * From what you're saying here the chain of events is essentially:
 * EEC agreed an embargo on Argentina, although Ireland and Italy opposed. As this is a majority decision the embargo was implemented.
 * Is there a suggestion that Ireland and Italy later breached the EEC decision and didn't implement the embargo?
 * ALR (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that is correct. Both Italy and Ireland agreed to the initial embargo but failed to renew it after hostilities commenced.  The embargo had to be unanimous or it was not binding on member nations.  Hence, my comment that the edit is misleading.  Wee Curry Monster talk


 * ALR, all I know is what sources say, which I included above. In my edit, I appended "against the wishes of Italy and Ireland" to the sentence about the embargo. As I say, I thought it to be interesting, and I believe it's a pity the refusal to include this. --Langus (t) 14:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to understand is the circumstance that we're intending on describing, using the sources to support that. I'd agree that the edit that you made doesn't reflect the chain of events, so there may be a more appropriate way to describe it.
 * ALR (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have the sources to support it, we could use Wee Curry Monster's words:
 * "Italy and Ireland initially agreed to the EEC embargo, but failed to renew it after hostilities commenced". --Langus (t) 18:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

RN Cuts 1981-2
It may be worth mentioning that Argentina had made moves against the Falklands back in the 1970s and that the-then PM Jim Callaghan had sent a nuclear hunter killer submarine down south to ward-off any likely invasion. When Mrs Thatcher's government came into office in 1979 one of the first things it proceeded to do was make massive cuts in the navy, as outlined by John Nott in the 1981 Defence Review.

One of the cuts was the proposed selling-off/scrapping of the Endurance. The Argentinians noticed this and drew the appropriate conclusion.

There's an item here on the release of some of the cabinet documents under the thirty year rule;

BTW, in 1979 when Mrs Thatcher's government entered office the Royal Navy, although much reduced from what it had been previously, still consisted of around 200 ships. IIRC, it still had around thirty frigates and destroyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is very, very.. very long, so the Royal Navy cuts were moved to Aftermath of the Falklands War. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk)'' 13:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK - thanks for the reply BTW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

result = British occupation
The result wasn't the British victory but a British occupation. I think anyone in the world accept British occupation as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.251.170 (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * General consensus aligns with the views of the UN. The Falklands are not occupied, they are British Territory.  If you feel that this view should be challenged, feel free to discuss changing the article (and the general scope of all the Falkland articles) here versus unilaterally changing a fundamental aspect of a controversial article.  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 08:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the general consensus: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocupaci%C3%B3n_brit%C3%A1nica_de_las_islas_Malvinas_%281833%29 http://www.todo-argentina.net/Geografia/provincias/Islas_Malvinas/historia.htm http://selvasorg.blogspot.it/2010/03/malvinas-y-suramerica.html http://www.cohbra.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1296:-la-libertadora-argentina--&catid=29:contatti-politici&Itemid=34 The Occupation of The islands is still a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.4.115 (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which international court says it's a crime? Change it when you can source it from a non-biased source. Bevo74 (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The general consensus in Argentina, maybe. Britain cannot occupy one of its territories. Is Argentina occupying Buenos Aires? — JonC ॐ 11:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

General consensus aligns with the views of the UN???????This is completely INSANE!! The General consensus of MOST OF THE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD (not just UK, US or UN) China, Russia, all of the countries in South America, India, most of the countries in Africa, Europe and Asia agree about the British Occupation of the Malvinas Islands. Those islands ARE OCCUPIED BY British Army!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.232.157 (talk)


 * You would need to show that reliable sources say that. You may have trouble doing this. ( Hohum  @ ) 14:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No, instead you should see the sites listed above. Unfortunately some have been canceled, this is the censorship of wikipedia, but do not worry so much, you can have a look at the Spanish version of the site and read a completely different article. Do you have a good knowledge of Spanish or you're a troglodyte? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.140.215 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please acquaint yourself with the requirements for inclusion on wikipedia. WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY, WP:CIRCULAR. Blogs, self published sites and wikipedia itself are not acceptable. Also, I suggest reading and following WP:CIVIL. Insults will get you nowhere fast. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong POV demands and comments like this are best ignored - especially when they only seem to be fueled by ignorance and prejudice. Mabuska (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, on the Spanish Wiki's article, "Victoria británica. El Reino Unido recupera la posesión de los archipiélagos" is used – which would appear to say "British victory. The United Kingdom regains possession of the archipelago". — JonC ॐ 21:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

POV
Im sure this must have been discussed before but I dont see it here now. Having occasion to read the article I note a couple of points immediatley. The runup does not mention that the Uk had been in negotiation to hand over the Falklands to Argentine rule or co rule. This inevitably must have affected Argentine views on the seriousness of British intent to fight or even complain. The US was at best luke warm on helping the Uk. It tried very hard to persuade the Uk not to fight and initially refused military help. The Uk military too, was extremely pessimistic over the chances of success and could best be described as divided on the advice it gave government. Sandpiper (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * IIRC the UK government had been willing to hand over the Falklands to Argentina but the sticking point had always been one of self-determination, i.e., HMG would not do so without the approval of the local inhabitants. The Falkland Islanders effectively said "Over our dead bodies!" to a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina, and so talks were effectively moribund. The Argentinians thought that once occupied, the Falkland Islanders (FI) could be 'won over' to their way of thinking but unfortunately this was not so, as they found out to their cost - it just made the FI's even less willing to give up their British citizenship - at the time it was reported that most, if not all FI's, were determined to remain British no matter what. The rather nasty aspects of the military junta(s) running Argentina had also not gone unnoticed on the Falklands, so that may also have played a part.


 * IIARC, the US was pretty non-enthusastic over helping Britain, at least publicly, although later made statements after the conflict that they had been willing to lend the RN a large carrier if it had been needed - this was Caspar Weinberger talking in around 1990-ish - and I believe that preparations for transferring one were actually started by the US, although with Hermes still available it wasn't actually needed. Hermes was due to be scrapped not long after the Invasion actually occurred so it was a bit of luck it was still around - it was this ship that made the task Force just viable. Any loaned big carrier would have been useful for its capability to operate both RAF Phantoms and Buccaneers which would have come in very handy.


 * The only limitation on whether Operation Corporate would be a success or not was really on the small number of ships available for the lift, and this limited number was mainly the fault of Mr's Thatcher's own government under John Nott when it had scrapped a large number of perfectly good ships the year previously. Nott later proved his character when he stormed off a BBC Newsnight interview live on-air with Robin Day when Day asked him what Nott thought was an insolent question as-regards his handling of the invasion - whether the public could place much trust in long-term important matters of defence being in the hands of a "here today, gone tomorrow, politician" was the phrase objected-to, although it was put to him most politely and in an inoffensive way. But it summed him up nicely. Incidently, I hear Mrs. Thatcher's still so unpopular they're having to arrange for her to be buried at sea when she eventually dies. That's to thwart all the three million people she put out of work back in the eighties who will be lining up to dance on her grave.


 * At the time of the invasion IIARC, Alexander Haig was involved in a hectic round of shuttle diplomacy with Britain and Argentina, such that he must have accumulated a fair number of air miles, however without much result, as the Argentinians would not budge at all over their then-present occupation - there was talk of a UN presence as a compromise or even a joint Argentina/British administration, but the Argentinians refused to relinquish their claim to sovereignty or to withdraw their troops before an agreement for a change of sovereignty had been reached. The British wouldn't accept any deal with the Argentinians still present on the islands, as that would have been seen as them having gained from an illegal action, i.e, the invasion. So the talks stalled. This was all prior to, and while the UK Task Force was still heading south.


 * IIARC, the US did supply some updated Sidewinder missiles to the RN for use on its Sea Harriers, and France did give some information on the Super Étendard and the Exocet, but that was all secret and not released publicly at the time. This is mostly from memory BTW.


 * I do also remember seeing news reports from Argentinian TV at the time showing their people celebrating in the streets, and boasting about their troops 'success' and prowess and thinking to myself, as the task force headed down south, "You people really don't know what you've let yourselves in for - 'our lot' are gonna walk all-over your forces and make it look like child's play - which to our lot, it is - even on the other side of the world". And they did.


 * Looking at it all with hindsight, the Argentinian invasion was probably a serious blunder for them, as they probably lost any chance of a peaceful change-over of sovereignty that may well have occurred, whether the FI's wished it or not, some time in the succeeding thirty years, as many of the younger FIs were not actually anti-Argentina as-such, whilst many of the older FI's who were strongly anti-Argentina would have likely died off in the intervening years, thus changing the demographics more in favour of a transfer of sovereignty. The British only really established themselves on the Falklands in the first place to use it as a coaling station for the Royal Navy at a time when they needed steam coal to be available in all parts of the world - the Falklands were for the use of RN ships steaming in the South Atlantic. Once the need for coal disappeared, the Falklands no longer had a strategic use from Britain's point of view. That left just the FI's and who they wanted to govern them. And they certainly didn't want a government well-known for its political 'disappearances' having any say over THEM. Would you.


 * BTW, there's a live recording of the Falkland Islands Broadcasting Station (FIBS) audio transmission during the 1982 invasion on YouTube here: with part 2 here: - the first report for the BBC World Service Radio Newsreel programme in this clip, reporting the unauthorised Argentinian landings on South Georgia, is being read by Moira Stuart. The clip also includes announcements by Governor Rex Hunt to the islanders as well as other BBC World Service news reports of the invasion, together with phoned-in live reports from islanders themselves, which some of you might find interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. It is for discussing ways to improve the article using reliable sources. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I frequently find that an unhelpfull comment in situations such as this where the general tone of the article was the point. One of the most difficult things is to obtain consensus on what is the correct emphasis on subtle points like the real positions of Uk/US. Sandpiper (talk)
 * Fraid I dont know what IIRC means.
 * I am sceptical about the viability of 'borrowing' a warship unless said ship comes complete with crew already trained in using its equipment. In which case, that would be US personnel coming under british command as part of the task force. Sandpiper (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am even more secptical that the Argentinians cared whether Falkland islanders might be won over to argentine rule. I doubt they would have cared had every one of them died in the invasion. Such an outcome would have made matters much simpler. Sandpiper (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IIRC: "if I remember correctly", or "if I recall correctly" --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

abuse of prisoners
would be nice if somebody add to the article the interesting facts about the usage of POWs by the British to clear the minefields http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19830412&id=G8RAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8qUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3828,1929355 where few died after the end of the war, and one lost their foot. and the excuses from Heseltine that they "were volunteered" to the job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Full statement here. Probably worth including in the Argentine surrender in the Falklands War article.
 * As a personal impression, the minefield accident looks like a genuine case of collaboration between both forces. On the first story, however, I tend to agree with MP Tam Dalyell's comment. --Langus (t) 17:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny that doesn't surprise me. For info, the Argentine POW at Goose Green requested permission to move ammo stacked near the sheds they were kept in (the only shelter left after the school burnt down).  In all likelihood they set off a booby trap, intended for British EOD teams.  No one was coerced into dangerous duty and further for info, the British forces showed and defused their own hidden ordnance as well.  The Falklands War is noted as being one of the few conflicts in which BOTH sides largely respected the law of armed conflict and it is well known that Argentine POW were treated better by the British than their own officers and NCO.  We don't present the ill-informed opinion of politicians who weren't there as fact.  Wee Curry Monster talk 23:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Force ratios
All other wars and battles in Wikipedia provide numbers for the opposing sides, but not here. The casualty figures are meaningless without them. Please add that there were about 9000 British Ground troops in total during the operations. Tustin, W.J. Major, British Army, "The Logistics of the Falklands War Part I," Army Guarterly and Defence Journal, July 1984, p. 296 220.238.42.127 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Minefields
Obviously not going to edit an article based on anecdotal evidence, but when I rotated through the Falklands back in 2009 (I am an ex-British Serviceperson) we recieved a safety briefing regarding the remaining landmines that I could have sworn included details on the most recent casualty from them ocurring in the 1990s. If anyone could find some more information on this it'd be most useful as I believe this section of the article may be inaccurate.

--205.156.180.229 (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes of 28 December 2012
I have undone a number of changes made by various anonymous editors in the last few hours:
 * The Falklands War did not resolve the sovereignty dispute - the dispute is on-going.
 * There is no need to remove the location of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands from the lede.
 * The papers released under the 30-year rule should be properly studied before random remarks are made.
 * ARN General Belgrano was sunk, not crippled.

Martinvl (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Military analysis
I have some concerns that this short paragraph does not accurately reflect the views of the best qualified analysts. Wayne Hughes Jr., in his book "Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat" ISBN 978-1-5575-0392-3, is a bit scathing about analysis such as:

"The most significant "lessons learned" include: the vulnerability of surface ships to anti-ship missiles and submarines, ..."

pointing out that naval combat has always been highly lethal to the participants, and that Sheffield et al. were sunk in the course of successfully doing their job, which was protecting the carriers and the amphibious landings.

I'm tempted to add a second paragraph to this effect, but I'd appreciate comments from those who've been around this article longer than I have before I barge in. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the things traded out of the Type 42 during construction to "save money", was the CIWS such as Phalanx. At one stage the Type 42 were supposed to be fitted with Sea Wolf in addition to Sea Dart to provide a capability against Anti-Ship missiles.  The Falklands War demonstrated conclusively that the removal of a CIWS was a foolhardy mistake (not that it stopped it being repeated with the Type 45).  It also redemonstrated the utter dominance of nuclear submarines.  So whilst the comment is a bit simplistic, it is accurate.  Its something that could be improved but I'd be wary of going into too much detail, which would be all to easy.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should distinguish between our analysis and that of those who are paid to do it whose writings we can refer to. I can't help noticing that the paragraph in question refers to no source whatever, yet it at least gives the impression (wrongly, in my view) of reflecting what such analysts have written.  I am trying to be a little more constructive here than merely drive-by tagging with a, much though the section deserves it. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have emphasised this wasn't my analysis but based on that of learned sources. I can suggest a few if it helps. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest that you improve the existing paragraph by citing them, and I will add a short paragraph, citing Hughes, showing that not all analysts are agreed on the matter. So far I've seen no evidence that the analysts you refer to are anything other than the armchair variety; Hughes is a retired USN captain and a Professor of the Naval Postgraduate School, and I think his opinion should carry some weight. Philip Trueman (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually I'd suggest we work out an improvement together in a sandpit. For information I am a professional engineer employed in the development of naval weapon systems.  I'm certainly no advocate of armchair analysts and did find that remark rather patronising.  The way wikipedia works is not to rely on the opinions of individuals as I'm sure you're aware, no matter how qualified and whether you happen to agree with them.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend to patronise, and I apologise for any offence taken. I agree completely with your last sentence, since it greatly helps my argument.  The way Wikipedia works is to rely on reliable secondary sources.  Hughes' book is that in spades - the bibliography runs to eight pages, although that includes other studies of tactics, not just the ones he cites.  His treatment of the lessons to be learned from the Falklands War runs to more than two pages, quite apart from those places where he illustrates a point with an example from the war.  To take a solid example: Hughes, relying on Blood et al. (Naval War College Review, Autumn 1996 pp. 124-134) quotes the hit rate on British warships and auxiliaries in the Falklands War as 1.34 per 100 ship-days.  The highest hit rate he quotes is 6.36 per 100 ship-days, for the Guadalcanal-Tulagi landings in August 1942.  Separately, he gives (human) casualties per hit for the Royal Navy in the Falklands War as about 20-25% of rates in World War II, though the number goes up sharply if you include the General Belgrano.  See what I mean?  I have a rock-solid secondary source that contradicts the (uncited) claim in the article about "the vulnerability of surface ships ..". Philip Trueman (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

But you'd still be basing your comments on the work of one individual. I don't propose we enter into a debate on the matter but often individuals have a particular bête noir and select the evidence to fit. As I said the lessons learnt is somewhat simplistic and whilst I'm not going to suggest that we put a detailed treatise on the matter expanding to explain the lack of a CIWS was a mistake for example is appropriate. The vulnerability that stemmed from short sighted savings is well documented. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but it isn't well documented in the article, because there are no cited sources. So far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned, the current paragraph is based on the opinion of no-one whatever.  Adding the cited opinion of one qualified person would be an improvement.  Quite separately, I am concerned that your stated occupation indicates that you have a conflict of interest in this matter - it is in the interests of your employer to promulgate the idea that a lesson to be learned from the war is that a failure to provide RN ships with a CIWS was a mistake.  Whether or not it was, you are conflicted.  (Slightly outside the current discussion, I agree completely with your comment earlier in this discussion about the dominance of nuclear[-powered] submarines, not least because Hughes makes exactly that point: "The sinking of the General Belgrano, which was built before World War II, showed again that it takes modern weapons to fight modern war.  The British navy outclassed the Argentine navy, notably in the category of nuclear submarines." (p.154).)  Separately again, please don't try to denigrate Hughes or his book - he is no oddball.  He served as the USN's "chief of naval education and training support", the book is published by the Naval Institute Press, and the blurbs on the back cover are by an Admiral, a Vice-Admiral, and someone from the Office of the Secretary of Defense.  I expect you to cite sources with a similar pedigree.  Coming back to CIWS again, the only case I am aware of of a CIWS being used in action wasn't exactly convincing.  Perhaps there is a case to be made for CIWS, but not in the Falklands War or Gulf War I articles.
 * I'm very, very strongly tempted now to add the tag, and add a short paragraph, citing Hughes, showing that there isn't universal agreement among analysts.  It goes without saying that if you revert such an edit I will report you to WP:COIN.  I would still prefer a less confrontational approach, and I'm happy to go along with your idea of a sandbox.  But the article cannot stand as it is.  Philip Trueman (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, seeing as my employment is not in CIWS and never has been. As it happens quite the opposite, seeing as you have threatened to impose an edit whilst I was plainly willing to discuss I will revert any such edit as I do not have a COI and I see such a threat as an attempt to intimidate.  Wee Curry Monster talk 00:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You would have absolutely no justification for reverting such an edit and you know it. I think it is telling that your offer to suggest a few learned sources has come to nothing so far.  But in an attempt to calm things down - let's go for the sandpit approach, and if that doesn't work, let's move to WP:3O.  Agreed? Philip Trueman (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I would be perfectly justified per WP:BRD, you'll note of course I was first to suggest the sandpit approach and offered to suggest additional sources so that we could represent the range of opinions in the literature. This is of course what WP:NPOV is about.  Your threat of WP:COIN appears all too clear to be an attempt to stifle discussion.  Are you aware of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:WEIGHT?  Now do you want the full 5 minute argument or shall we collaborate.  BTW for the avoidance of doubt the reference to humour is intended to amuse not antagonise.  I would be happy to take this to WP:3O, though I would suggest you're being somewhat premature.  Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 13:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, sandpit it is. Will you create one or shall I?  Your comments about stifling discussion and WP:ADVOCACY make no sense - there is a lively discussion happening right here, and there's nothing wrong with advocacy on talk pages - that's what they're for.  It would be an abuse to use the article page for those activities, but you will note that it hasn't happened yet.  As for WP:WEIGHT, what is the weight of one reliable secondary source against zero? Philip Trueman (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

/Military Analysis - Sandpit created, lets just see where it goes. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The most obvious lesson is that if you want to project any sort of sea power you need a sufficient number of ships - the 1981 Defence White Paper debacle the year before scuppered that. Prior to the review, in around 1980 the RN still had around 300 surface warships of various sizes - after the review it had IIRC around 36. Nott effectively destroyed the RN as any sort of credible force on the world stage and took Britain's naval power back around 500 years. The Argentinian junta must have thought Christmas had come early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Space Review
Wee Curry Monster and I are having a dispute over this edit. He contends that citing The Space Review violates WP:SPS. I contend that The Space Review qualifies as a WP:RS as it has a substantial history (10 years as of last month) and recognized experts who have published elsewhere are its authors.

The cite in question is by Dwayne Allen Day, a longtime researcher who has published books on aspects of space (including satellite surveillance and national security, germane to this dispute), has paper trails at NASA and on JSTOR, and assisted the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Ylee (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Space Review is clearly a blog. As such an WP:SPS and not a reliable source.  If the gentleman in question has had his work published and cited, it would be better to cite that not the blog.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've looked at John F. Lehman Jr. (US secretary of the Navy in 1982) reflections U.S. Naval Institute with "I regularly reviewed top-secret satellite photos of the islands" and "Everything that I..knew of military value we shared..". Even though Dwayne Allen Day's "The Lion and the Vortex" is based on a toast speech of former NRO director Donald Kerr, it (and Lehman) opens for a change in this article's satellite view. However the failure of Operation Plum Duff doesn't indicate satellite images of Rio Grande. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, whenever I see extraordinary claims made in a single reference, without a clear and authorative reference I question whether they are sustainable. Particularly when they are made in a blog. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

prisoners-->prisoner?
In Goose Green section it reads "In total 961 Argentine troops (including 202 Argentine Air Force personnel of the Condor airfield) were taken prisoners." SHouldn't it just be "prisoner"? 69.158.136.244 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion/proposal to copy/translate content from German-language Wikipedia article
It might be worth our effort here in the English Wikipedia to find a way to copy and translate some content on this subject from the German-language article. If you haven't seen it before, it is huge and has GA status on the German Wikipedia (not sure how to wikify a cross-wiki link, so here's a bare link: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklandkrieg). The German article is far more thorough and detailed than either the English- or Spanish-language articles on the war. I don't mean just a little, I mean it's got at least 5 times more content, minimum. Overall, it appears to be a thoroughly-researched, thoroughly-sourced article on the war that practically leaves no stone unturned. I would almost go so far as to say it puts the English and Spanish versions to shame—especially since one would assume that the most attention would be given to this subject by the English and Spanish Wikipedia communities.

It also might be useful as a source of third-party, relatively neutral-POV content. I bring that up because it's funny how on the last 2 or 3 anniversaries of this war, there has suddenly been a lot of non-neutral-POV interest in attempting to rewrite the articles on this subject to one side's particular POV—not that this would have anything to do with the current political climate in a certain nation or its current president's sudden recent interest in the Falklands.

Anyway. German Wikipedia = amazing job on this article. Worth checking out. Unfortunately my 2 years of high school German class are not up to the task. Can anyone help? Darkest tree (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * While they may be a useful source of information, note that de.wiki has some different policies from en.wiki. Notably, they prefer to write long single articles whereas we prefer to put the same information into a number of more focussed articles.  This difference in approach means that the fact that a German-language article is longer does not necessarily mean that their coverage is better or more detailed - we might use a half dozen or more articles to put the same information.


 * The 184k of readable prose in the German equivalent article to this would make it a prime candidate to be split up on en.wiki due to WP:SIZE. Kahastok talk 17:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just read it, I do wonder how it made it to GA status, some very elementary errors of fact; particularly in describing the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano. Very little information that isn't on this wikipedia, though we have the Falklands War covered in several articles rather than one big one.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, then; all very illuminating comments—I knew the German Wikipedia had some kind of different article writing policy but didn't know exactly what it was, and I also hadn't thought of the WP:SIZE issue. If we indeed have covered the subject just as adequately, then I'll be happy to leave things as is... Darkest tree (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 1 September 2013
(Chipperdude15) I read on an article about Castro that he supported Argentina. Can I put that in below Argentina? (talk)
 * ❌ At the very least, need a more specific request with specific wording and a source to back it up. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Longdon- unhelpful multiple edits
The section on Mount Longdon shows the sign of several hands.

The most serious is the insertion of a section on HMS Glamorgan into an account of the land battle. This should be repositioned and the connection with the Longdon fight explained.

Secondly I don't think an inventory of the Argentine defender's weapons is really necessary. It reads like a War Comic, tending towards POV. I suggest:

"The British attack almost stalled in the face of unexpectedly determined Argentine resistance. After a night of fierce fighting, all objectives were secured. Both sides suffered heavy losses. Sgt Ian McKay of 4 Platoon, B Company, 3 Para died in a grenade attack on an Argentine bunker, which earned him a posthumous Victoria Cross.

13 Royal Naval personnel also were killed when HMS Glamorgan, having been providing Naval gunfire support for the night attack, strayed too close to shore while returning from the gun line and was struck by an improvised trailer-based Exocet MM38 launcher taken from the destroyer ARA Seguí.[92]  "

JF42 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Military analysis" sub-section...
This was added with this edit, by InspectorTiger. While it included the edit summary; "brief military analysis section cut+pasted from full "Aftermath" article", and, this section lead may be supported in it's original location, it appears completely unsupported here in this article, on it's own.

Do any regular contributor's have a suggestion to address this? -  thewolfchild  21:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Broken Links
Can somebody fix the broken (27 Oct 2013) link for the Falklands Islands role of honour I think http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/FalklandIslandsHistoryRollofHonour.cfm is good, perhaps the description ought to be "Falklands Islands role of honour (British)" please delete this once done

PurpleCamel (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

first paragraph vandalised
have read many many archived pages where it was agreed that it was not called the Malvinas/falklands war. Then last month it was changed to this by one editor!! I have changed it back to the agreed lead, please discuss here if you want to change it, but please read all the arguments in the archives before you do, there are loads! (31.53.253.141 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC))

have also asked senior editors to look at it and make sure it is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.253.141 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It certainly isnt called the Falklands/Malvinas War in any language (or La Guerra de los Falklands/Malvinas either). We should stick with Falklands war as the most common term in English♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Falklands as belligerents in infobox
The Falkland Islands have been removed from the belligerents section of the infobox without explanation. I think the Falklands should be listed as belligerents as the FIDF were combatants during the Argentine invasion and many Islanders assisted and even fought with British forces during the war (most notably Terry Peck). Also, elected members of the government of the islands (such as Bill Luxton) were deported during the war and took part in a propaganda campaign against the Argentine Military.

Constitutionally, the Falklands are a dependent territory of the UK, not part of the United Kingdom, and thus should not be included under the British flag. I also think it is useful for any reader of the article to be able to quickly assess the role and position of the islanders. Such quick gathering of information is the main purpose of an infobox. --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Final Sentence
Is the final sentence of the intro paragraph really necessary? It could be turned into a subtitle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minjaewolfjoy (talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Casualty Figures
Again we see a newly registered editor changing the casualty figures. We're aware a number of reference sources released shortly after the war included erroneous figures. The figures in the article now are accurate. Apologies if I seem testy but this a regular problem here and we'd appreciate you not indulging in a slow motion edit war and follow WP:BRD. WCM email 16:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is on many watchlists. I have made some comments and requests at the user's talk page. It's a hazard of watchlisting articles on popular subjects that many newly registered editors will wish to "correct" the figures; would an invisible comment help? --John (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks. WCM email 20:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (Paging ) Its usually Middlebrook's early book or the 1987 reprint that is used to quote the wrong figure.  Would appreciate someone else explaining WP:BRD and the need to use the talkpage again.  WCM email 07:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS its not as I thought a newbie, been editing since 2012. WCM email 07:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the figures used in this article are flagged as citation needed. What is the source for these figures? --John (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Source separated and CN tag added by 213.246.86.98. That was an IP who was edit warring over adding a load of extraneous flags so I guess it was missed.  That'll need fixing, I'd recommend  as a source but can't access my copy at the moment.  BTW  see  and the guy has reverted multiple times now without coming to talk - is a warning per WP:TPG appropriate.  WCM email 11:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This user has already been blocked. Appreciate any time you can give to repairing the references. --John (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Repaired the references but had a syntax problem with the wiki markup. Drove me nuts I can't see the error. WCM email 22:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed them. You can't nest tags inside one another like that. --John (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Spanish translation in the lead
This makes no sense. World War II doesn't have the German translation in the lead; why does this article have the Spanish translation? - Khendon (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate but it makes every sense, particularly in holding the moral high ground of WP:NPOV. As the editor responsible for making the equal representation of the Spanish and English language names have equal representation on the English wikipedia I will take a back seat.  But I urge newer editors to avoid taking a narrow nationalist viewpoint. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No narrow nationalist viewpoint here; I just want to know by what wikipedia policy, guideline, principle or just plain logic does it make sense to include the Spanish translation? It's not a name by which it's commonly known in English, as far as I know. - Khendon (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anybody? - Khendon (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wee Curry Monster talk 06:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I still think it's nonsense, but it's nonsense with consensus so I'll live with it! - Khendon (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's nonsense too. Consensus can change. Mabuska (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?
Should the article mention the British position in going to war was hypocritical, considering that just two years later we agreed to give Hong Kong to China? (RobbieGentry (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC))
 * See the article on Hong Kong. That territory was only ever leased to Britain. it was never "ours" to give, or hold on to. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong was permanently ceded to the UK in 1842. It was only the New Territories that were on a lease. (RobbieGentry (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC))
 * This really has nothing to do with the subject. Looks like WP:Notforum.Charles (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that the UK went to war over the Falklands because it could defeat Argentina, yet it gave Hong Kong to China because it could not defeat the world superpower. (RobbieGentry (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC))
 * WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Not suitable content for wikipedia, please find another avenue for soap boxing, article talk pages are for discussing improving the article.  The UK returned Hong Kong to China as it was obliged to return the territories under a lease, you've had an answer and if no one objects I will close this discussion presently. WCM email 18:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The New Territories were under a lease, not Hong Kong. (RobbieGentry (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC))
 * Dont sound to me like two similar situations but any which way we would need reliable sources to include any claims of hypocrisy on the part of the UK govt and then introduce it in such a way that it is clear that this is just an opinion and not a cast-iron fact♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would have been impractical to keep Hong Kong Island by itself, e.g. no fresh water or food supplies. That apart Hong Kong had been part of China for thousands of years while Argentina did not exist as an independent state when the Falklands became British.Charles (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Modern China had only existed since 1949 and the 1842 treaty which ceded Hong Kong forever to the UK was not signed by a Communist regime. It is obviously hypocritical to go to war to recover a territory from Argentina, only to give away another territory to China. People in Britain now would not support another war over the Falklands; the islanders should have been compensated financially as the Thatcher governmt initially intended. (RobbieGentry (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

Pictures of veterans of Argentina
There are two pictures of demonstrations of veterans of the Falkland Wars in the Commons. They seem to have set camp in Plaza de Mayo, Buenos Aires, for quite some time (one picture is from February 2014 and the other is from January 2015). They could be included somewhere in the article, maybe under "Aftermath". These are the pictures: File:Banderas de demostración sobre Plaza de Mayo.JPG and File:Demostracion en la Plaza de Mayo de los veteranos de guerra del Conflicto del Atlantico Sur.JPG. Mateussf (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the context of the demonstrations? My Spanish is appalling, but does one of the banners read justice? If it is a demonstration about the subsequent grievances of the veterans in terms of treatment after the war, it may be worth considering. If it is merely a patriotic demo I would disregard. Initial thoughts Irondome (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a long standing consensus to minimise the aftermath section, so I would suggest not here. Perhaps in the aftermath article but in reality I have my doubts even there. WCM email 21:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel
Should Israel be listed as an ally of Argentina, since it gave the Argentine junta weapons during the conflict? (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC))
 * No IJA (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No WCM email 21:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both Israel and Libya should be listed as Argentina's allies. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC))
 * No they shouldn't, selling arms does not make you an ally. WCM email 17:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The US sold arms to both the UK and Argentina, lets put the US as an ally of both... Oh wait... that'd be ridiculous. IJA (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The US did not sell weapons to Argentina during the actual war. Israel gave the weapons to Argentina for free. (Morboso (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

"The most serious and violent episode"

 * I introduced that wording over a week ago, and I firmly believe it should stand. I believe it to be factually correct. The loss of life and international ramifications were unprecedented in the history of the dispute. I propose we seek consensus as to the reversion of the status quo (as it had been stable and unchallenged for some time allowing for the context of the longevity of contentious material in this article, which is short, usually being reverted within hours) or whether it be changed. I would assert that it has tacit consensus, as we are all aware how heavily this page is watched, and there has been no revert attempt until now. A simple support or oppose will do. Irondome (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would call "consensus" to a version that stood for 16 months, not a mere week. Not every WP editor logs in daily, and even if everyone here does so, vacations and busy weeks are not uncommon in a normal person's life. No, I definitely wouldn't consider a 7 days old edit to be fully consensuated, specially when it's modifying such a long standing version.


 * That being said, I can relate to your opinion but I consider it just that, our own assessment of history, on which I partially disagree. And I seriously doubt that every author in the academic literature would agree that the war was "the most serious and violent episode" in the islands' history. Have you ever seen this expression or a similar one expressed by a reliable source? ---- Langus TxT 16:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Tend to agree with that it was well within writer discretion to describe a war in that manner, given nearly a 1000 young men died on an archipelago where there has been perhaps 1 murder since WW2.  Its not as if Falklands history is replete with serious and violent episodes...  Just my 2c.  WCM email 18:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I appreciate the measured response. You say you "partially" disagree. Then obviously that means there is partial common ground here. What if there is a fact or reality which is so self-evidently obvious that sources do not attempt to mention it? I believe we are in this territory. It raises an interesting point, and the pool of available R/S on this subject is extremely large. I have not excluded the possibility that a R/S supporting this is extant somewhere, so I am having a wander through. Why not put it back, with a citation needed, for a month or so to allow for a proper search. Or an alternative wording could be agreed. Can you expand on what your partial agreement to it is? I can't really see how this wording can be seriously factually disputed. I think the deployment of WP:BURDEN is using a hammer to crack a small hazelnut here. Irondome (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say the problem is not so much about being "self-evidently obvious" but rather about being a matter of personal opinion and perspective. Neutral authors would not attempt to single out "the most serious incident". Moreover, Argentine POV-ed authors would undoubtedly consider it to be the 1833 takeover, not the war. My partial agreement is on the qualification of "most violent", although the gaucho murders could be another contender for that category.
 * However, if the proposed phrase is changed to "one of the most serious and violent episodes"... that would be undisputed, and not in violation of the whole range of opinions in literature. I do however prefer current wording, "a major episode", as it sounds more encyclopedic, less passional. ---- Langus TxT 21:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be in support of that wording. I do not consider the edit to be urgent, but think we can explore this a bit further. Completely concur with the issue of POV affecting choice of incidents in terms of "seriousness". Interesting stuff. Regards Irondome (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "A major episode, and in terms of lives lost, the most violent..."? Irondome (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should we add (solely) such description?. It is also the most interesting, expensive, and best known episode, etc. I think it is original research. -- Keysanger (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly. These are the most notable characteristics of the conflict. Irondome (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It was the most serious and violent episode in the dispute regardless of original research or whatever. I would call WP:BLUE on it. Mabuska (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am obviously aware of the minefield that this subject is, and my desire to keep things calm. I am attempting to accommodate all views and would be quite willing to give ground. But the bottom line is WP:BLUE. As I said in my initial comments "What if there is a fact or reality which is so self-evidently obvious that sources do not attempt to mention it?". WP:BLUE gents. I propose again a straight support or oppose approach to gain consensus. I am still open to adjusting the wording somewhat. I do not think the language is overly dramatic. Just a sober wording of two self-evident realities. Editors who flatly reject both premises are pushing an unjustifiable POV IMO. Irondome (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, WP:BLUE.. and planet Earth is the most interesting planet in the Solar system.
 * I would call WP:PEACOCK on such an expression. Not to mention a matter of personal opinion. ---- Langus TxT 05:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not exactly what you say, but in The Falkland Islands as an International Problem they state that: [1982] was a crucial one in the history of the Falklands dispute but not necessarily The Falklands War was a turning point in modern British history. I am not sure, but I think your statement could became a troublemaker. -- Keysanger (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @U|Keysanger, that bears no relationship whatsoever with the simple reality that it was "the most serious (or one of the most serious) and the most violent episode in the history of the dispute". I am not claiming anything about it being "a turning point in modern British history". @u|LangusTxT peacock hardly applies here. Serious and violent are not peacock terms, especially for a major naval air and land war. It almost seems that there is a subliminal and actually unconscious desire to downplay the importance of the war and all that entails, in contrast to the event of 1833. Irondome (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not downplaying the war, I just don't think we should promote it to the place of supreme relevance that the phrase the most serious episode would give it. Not in Wikipedia's voice. -- Langus TxT 21:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not saying anyone has shown this and certainly not you U|Langus-TxT. It just a personal perception which I am still working through. As I have repeatedly said, I would certain be happy with "one of the most serious episodes.." as a wording variant. I believe you show some sympathy with the assertion as to it's unique bloodshed in this whole complex and protracted tale. Basically it could be down to just one word, which I would accept.Irondome (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)