Talk:Falklands War/Archive 8

Archived 30/06/08
Ryan 4314 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo Montage
Purely for information, I have been informed on my talk page, that as a result of my dispute with Fut.Perf. over the deletion of the image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg see , he has now decided that the Photo Montage I created also fails the fair use rationale because of the use of the image of HMS Antelope. Justin talk 08:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought we had gone for all non-free images in it? If not, then yep, I have to say that I probably agree with him on that. Narson (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The picture of the Antelope is not free. But I do think that, given his involvement, Future Perfect should go through process on this.  Announcing Image will be gone in 48h. on a user talk page without even tagging the image is inappropriate in my view, whatever the reasons for deleting. Pfainuk talk 09:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly process-conformant speedy deletion after notification. I even went to the trouble notifying the uploader with a friendly personal message instead of a mere tag. What else do you want? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Antelope is Crown Copyright, free for non-commercial use but doesn't conform to GFDL. It was included because of its iconic status and there is no none free equivalent.  Its one of those images that you just can't represent the Falklands War without.  I took advice before including it, the advice indicated that there was a fair use rationale.
 * And purely as a comment, the edit summary on my talk page did not seem very friendly to me. Justin talk 09:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? What was unfriendly about a message with edit summary "Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg", and beginning, "Sorry to bother you with this spin-off of our discussion..."? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you asked (but given that Pfainuk had already mentioned it, it seemed obvious) I referred to the edit summary Image will be gone in 48h which I did take to be unfriendly. Justin talk 10:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'd agree that perhaps FutPer should consider how it looks with him getting involved, considering other goings on, I do agree with him still. There are plenty of iconic images, I think, that we can use freely for a montage. For example, do we have free images of the old Ark Royal? Or Harriers? Or perhaps one of the sunk vessels? Heck, even a free image of the Invincible would be interesting considering the claims of its sinking. Narson (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Normally, items to be speedy deleted are tagged with the justification for speedy deletion. This was not.  And I don't actually see which of the CSD you contend this meets.  Fair use is claimed, so I9 is out.  Under I7, the time limit is 7 days, not 48 hours, and in any case the point of contention is surely NFCC 1, which is specifically excluded from I7.  Those are the two that could be claimed, so far as I can see.  It doesn't meet any of the other image criteria or the general criteria.  So, so far as I can see, while it may meet I7 (a debatable point), you're not putting it through the process described there.  Note that I actually agree that it probably doesn't meet NFCC 1.


 * In any case, I am concerned that you (FPAS) may be too involved at this point. If it meets CSD, then I'm sure another admin will come to the same decision. Pfainuk talk 10:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The wording of those CSD conditions must have been messed up since the last time I looked. You may be right that as far as it's replaceability it would point to 7d instead of 48h. But it doesn't matter, really, because both notification periods are only meant to give the uploaders time to become aware of the issue and raise their response. As this has happened now, I could actually go ahead and delete right away, the notification and waiting time has already served its purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some free images and as I've still got the original art work I can probably create something similar. There aren't many free images that convey as much as the iconic image of the Antelope.  It was carefully considered, indeed agonised over, when we put it together and included for that very reason. If process is followed and it ends up deleted I guess I'll have to create something slightly different but it won't be as balanced or as informative as the current one.  Justin talk 10:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just reread it, I made a mistake on the time limit. But NFCC 1 is specifically not allowed as part of CSD: Non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criteria 1 or 8) may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader (emphasis mine).


 * To Justin, yes I agree. That photo clearly demonstrates the "fighting war" aspect of this quite well.  And I can't think of a good free replacement - it's awkward because Argentine photos (generally of Argentine subjects) are generally Wiki-free, while British ones tend to be Crown Copyright.  But I think it could be done.  Not quite as well, maybe, but it could be done.  It's not like replacing the Conqueror image with a picture of a partially-obscured decommissioned hull. Pfainuk talk 10:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be right, however, I'd still prefer to go through the process of deletion review by an uninvolved admin to confirm that. And I most strongly object to the suggestion that I've had an adequate chance to make a response, I was waiting for a deletion nomination to do that.  I have not provided a response as yet and that would be an abuse of process yet again. Justin talk 11:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it should be tagged for IFD or speedy, and if it is to be deleted another admin should do the deletion. If it's as clear as Future Perfect makes out then there is no reason not to rely on the judgement of an uninvolved admin. Pfainuk talk 11:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE

OK I've updated it with entirely free images. If anyone comes up with a better arrangement I've kept all the original artwork so I can swap it around. Justin talk 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Justin and I have had some edit tennis going on regarding the photo montage at the top of the article. My problem is that the satellite image of the falklands referred to in the caption is not actually part of the montage. Why keep reverting to an incorrect caption? Mastercarbon (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

List of sources
FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:. Cla68 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sinking of HMS Sheffield
It states that "two Dassault Super Étendards were launched ... each armed with a single Exocet AM.39 missile. Then: "The first missile missed HMS Yarmouth" 1 Missle, "Sheffield was struck amidships" 2 Missles, The other missile splashed into the sea half a mile off her port beam 3 Missles???? If two planes each with 1 Missle, how are there 3 Missles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.35.45 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because missiles that miss still continue on. I think the first missile missed Yarmouth and crashed into Sheffield. Narson (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No the poster is mistaken, Sheffield was hit by a single missile, the other was decoyed by chaff from Yarmouth and splashed into the sea. Only two missiles.  Atlantic Conveyor was the only ship hit by two missiles as she didn't have decoy systems and was too large for decoys to be effective.  Justin talk 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That section needs a rewrite, the foot notes on Sheffield clearly show two missles (one hit and one miss), so either the missle missed Yarmouth and struck Sheffield or was the second missle that missed, but from article it is hard not clear and as I posted reads as three missles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.113.28 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? Narson (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this M.O.D. source, it was Glasgow that fired chaff, but there is no record of it producing any effect (except the trivial observation that Glasgow herself wasn't hit). Yarmouth was on the opposite side of Glasgow. The report is unequivocal that two missiles were fired.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thinK I could see what they meant and have added a clarification. I was under the impression Yarmouth also fired chaff as well.   Justin talk 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Confirmed from Yarmouths War Diary that she fired chaff as well causing missile to miss . Justin talk 22:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When the war began
I'm not sure about a sentence that appears in the second paragraph of the intro that is as follows:

"The war was triggered by the occupation of South Georgia by Argentina on 19 March 1982 followed by the occupation of the Falklands, and ended when Argentina surrendered on 14 June 1982."

The South Georgia thing was an attempt to occupy South Georgia while it was abandoned by the British for the winter, where some Argentine marines were snuck in as salvage workers. Freedman beleives, from the official history, that if the Argentines had not acted suspiciously the British would not have discovered the move until they returned after the winter. However, the Argentine invasion did not happen until 2 April 1982 and caught the British unawares. My point is that if the war was triggered on 19 March 1982 then why did it take another fortnight for the action to commence, and the rallying of the Task Force and the jingoistic newspaper headlines to appear and other such stuff. The Argentines were not locked into an invasion after the South Georgia thing was discovered, and if the April invasion had not occured then the March action would today be dismissed as optimistic shenanigans. And if South Georgia was "occupied" on 19 March, why did the Argentines invade the islands again after they had taken the Falklands? The article should reflect that the March endevour was a related but seperate episode that merely demonstrated that the Argentines were getting titchy, but in no way did it imply that they were about to launch a full scale invasion to occupy the Falklands and her dependencies. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Not quite, have you read "Signals of War" by Freedman and Gamba-Stonehouse? The Argentines mis-interpreted British intentions over South Georgia and moved up the invasion ahead of the deployment of an SSN.  Anaya initiated Project Alpha after promising to call it off and that precipitated the crisis.  I have a personal belief that was deliberate on his part to manufacture an incident in order to provide a pretext for invading the Falklands.  Justin talk 08:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, a quick look at the index of Signals under South Georgia has the subheadings "Argentine capture, 117-20" refering to the April action, and "Argentine presence, 49-51, 54-6" refering to the March incident. Need I go further to demonstrate that there was no "occupation of South Georgie by Argentina on 19 March 1982" ? The March event did not effect the Falklands invasion but rather affected the timing of the Falklands invasion. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC))
 * OK I see we're you're coming from and TBH I agree it could be worded better. My suggestion:

"The war was triggered by the landing of Argentine forces on South Georgia on 19 March 1982, under the cover of scrap metal workers sent there to dismantle the disused whaling station. It was followed by the occupation of the Falklands by Argentina on 2 April 1982, and ended when Argentina surrendered on 14 June 1982."


 * Far from perfect, too wordy at the moment but I think it contains the basic facts. Justin talk 09:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, definately better. However, I would suggest that it is more accepted to say "The Falklands War started on 2 April with the Argentine invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, and ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982." And to later describe the March thing as a "significant and related incident immediately prior to the war that signalled Argentine restlessness" or something to that effect, the actual wording doesn't really bother me. I would point to Signals which details the March incident under the heading "Part Two: Crisis" but the April invasion under "Part Three: Confrontation". To the official history, which includes the March incident under "Vol 1: The Origins of the Falklands War" but has, in Vol 2, the first Chapter "At War" with it's first subheading "the Argentine Invasion." i.e. the war started with the Argentine invasion. In March, the marines wrote on signs, shot deer and made a mess. In April, they were there for business. Basically, it is more NPOV, more conservative, and more accurate to state the war began on 2 April, especially in the introduction, which right now is full of information that would be more appropriate in the body of the article. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't have a problem with that proposal, seems good to me. See what some of the other regulars think, you can draw attention to this discussion here.  Might be a group you're interested in joining. Justin talk 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pez Dispens3r's wording seems fine to me. Apcbg (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised Opening
Like the new opening, a major improvement. Well done. Justin talk 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. Apcbg (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys :) Pez Dispens3r (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened in the other Countries while the Falklands War were going on?
What (Some Text Missing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.10.166.40 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pucara-plane.jpg
The image Image:Pucara-plane.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] done! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:The Sun (Gotcha).png —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairuseBot (talk • contribs)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] done! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this sorted? Justin talk 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * User Caulde thought it was better with a .png version instead of a .jpg version. The fair use rationale didn't automatically switch to the .png version and a Bot was alerted. I've inserted an at the image page. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah no worries, thanks for explaining that. I had a quick look and couldn't see what the problem was.  Justin talk 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured Again
Is it possible to get this article featured again? It has several good pictures, maps, a great deal of information, as well as a large number of cited sources. Although the bunched up groups of information after Public Relations could be removed to make it a wee bit smaller. They are fascinating, but small bits of information. After that, I'd claim it perfect or close. Colonel Marksman (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd actually say it'd be quite a bit of hard work to get the article up to FA, but possible. Too much work for me at least, but I'll support any efforts however I can.-- Ryan 4314  (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding sources about the sinking of the Belgrano
(moved from top of page)

At this point of this article:

The sinking occurred 14 hours after President of Peru Belaúnde proposed a comprehensive peace plan and called for regional unity, although Mrs Thatcher and diplomats in London did not see this document until after the sinking of the Belgrano Block quote

I added a Wikiquote source which also includes a video where Mrs Thatcher states that the peruvian peace proposals did not reach London until after the attack on the Belgrano.

Gould: It is a desire for action, and a lack of communications because, on giving those orders to sink the Belgrano when it was actually sailing away from our fleet and away from the Falklands, was in effect sabotaging any possibility of any peace plan succeeding, and Mrs Thatcher had 14 hours in which to consider the Peruvian peace plan that was being put forward to her. In which those fourteen hours those orders could have been rescinded.

Thatcher: One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published.

Gould: That is not good enough, Mrs Thatcher. We need ..

Thatcher: Would you please let me answer? I lived with the responsibility for a very long time. I answered the question giving the facts, not anyone's opinions, but the facts. Those Peruvian peace proposals, which were only in outline, did not reach London until after the attack on the Belgrano. That is fact. I am sorry, that is fact, and I am going to finish. Did not reach London until after the attack on the Belgrano. Moreover, we went on negotiating for another fortnight after that attack...

I hope it helps, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.163.164 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sinking of The Belgrano
However, during war, under international law, the heading of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate.

I'd like to perform some changes:

1) I don't think the term testify is suitable for this if we take into account the part of the quoted source that fits the statement quoted above. Quoted Source

Earlier this year the ship's captain, Hector Bonzo, admitted that the Belgrano's decision to sail away from the Task Force on the morning of 2 May was only a temporary manoeuvre.

"Our mission ... wasn't just to cruise around on patrol but to attack, Captain Bonzo  said in a television interview in May. "When they gave us the authorisation to use our weapons, if necessary, we had to be prepared to attack. Our people were completely trained. I would say we were anxious to pull the trigger."

The term "testify" gives the nosion of someone declaring at a court rather than someone who openly states something as in a Television Show (as the quoted source states). Definition of Testify at WordReference.com

I would rather say use: stated, said, etc. Otherwise, it would be ambiguous in my opinion.

2)

Although the Captain of the Belgrano openly said that the attack was a "legitimate act of war", I will enphasize that ''the sinking of the Belgrano without the previous existence of a Declaration Of War constitutes a crime, something which allowed the case of the relatives of those who died on the Belgrano to reach the International Court of Justice. Sources From BBC NEWS

Source From New York Times:

Britain and Argentina resumed diplomatic ties in 1990, and in 1994 the Argentine government formally recognized the sinking of the General Belgrano as a "legal act of war." In July 2000, however, relatives of two Argentines who died in the attack filed a complaint against the British government at the European Court for Human Rights, claiming that the attack violated the crew members' "right to life" and seeking compensation. --- --201.253.163.164 (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Agree, prefer the term "stated"
 * 2) You may have to rewrite this request, I am confused as to what you are proposing? Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---


 * This statement

In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate.

In my opinion, this statement seems to justfify or to enforce the british point of view which seems to assert that the fact that the captain of the Belgrano admits that the attack was legitimate justifies its sinking which is known to have been performed without a previous Declaration of War by either side. I think it would be useful to add information about the legal actions taken against the UK government by the relatives of those who died in the Belgrano in the International Court of Justice to in order to lower the importance of Hector Bonzo's statements in legal terms or legally speaking.

--201.253.163.164 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhm, you seem to have misunderstood legal process. That they filed papers does not mean that something is illegal. I could file papers with the international court that, for example, state my floor is green. You can file papers for anything really, however the court will then make a detirmination whether there is a case to answer. With rational things and the international courts, that can take months. The source merely states that papers were filed, not that the act has been found illegal. Now...that being said...
 * If you can cite it, feel free to put in a bit about the relatives suing over the belgrano in the appropiate section. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, as Narson points out above filing a case has no bearing on the legitimacy or otherwise of an attack. I'd go further and say that this sort of detail about an incident during the war, occurring as it does 20 years later, belongs in the Belgrano article and not in an overview article on the war itself.  The Argentine Government, the Argentina Navy and the Captain of the ship has acknowledged the legitimacy of the attack, how Argentine opinion is enforcing the British point of view is a logical leap that I just don't follow.  Justin talk 22:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that last time i looked invading another countries territory is pretty much an act of war and i think no-one can realistically argue against that fact (if that isn't then what the hell is!). Therefore the sinking of the Belgrano (although unfortunate for the loss of life) was perfectly legitimate. ([User:Willski72]) 21:00, 5 January 2009 (GMT)Willski72 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request
Could I request that an admin look at the edits that the IP editor I reported had been making. I requested semi-protection as an IP editor had been making a series of POV edits but when I posted on his talk page he switched IP addresses, hence I figured a vandalism warning was inadequate. Its quite a clever piece of POV vandalism as the edit at the top appears reasonable (although unnecessary as the quote already has a citation), scroll down further, you can see that several comments that could be considered critical of Argentina, all of which are sourced, have been removed. A quote from one author has been distorted, a large tract of text dealing with press censorship by the military regime has been removed and a comment about the Madres de Plaza de Mayo has been expunged. 3 editors were reverting these edits, it was not an edit war. I request that the article be reverted to the previous consensus version before these edits were made. May I suggest this version which predates any of this. Justin talk 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm the Anonymous editor. Once again, I did NOT change IP address, it has been the same address since my edits started just one hour ago. Secondly, the edit at the top of the page ("every civilian Argentine president up to date has vowed to pursue this claim through peaceful means") now has four sources to back it up simply because another user complained about it, I had originally placed only one source for that statement. Thirdly, I did not remove any "comments critical of Argentina". I removed a large quote from the citations section (concerning the tensions with Chile and Argentine foreign policy) and left only the original book name as reference, simply because it's not customary to cite entire quotes from books, just the name of the book, the page, and what makes it relevant to the article. Saying "x military officer considered Argentina part of the First World" is not relevant to the article and clogs the text unnecessarily. Aside from this, I did NOT delete anything else, instead ADDED more information to the article backed by sources, like the trials to the military dictatorship in 1985 (don't you think that should be mentioned in a section about political consequences of the war?!), added information on ties between the military junta and the US government (again backed by a source), and added information on the press section regarding the fact that Argentina was living in a state of press censorship during the war, which is relevant and again backed by sources. Finally, I removed the comment about the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo suffering death threats from "ordinary people" because it was NOT SOURCED and I consider it to be a false assertion. You may, of course, add that sentence again if you find a source for it.


 * We could have had a nice chat about this on my talk page, if you had bothered to read my edits section-by-section and told me what you found wrong with them, instead you decided to revert everything I did in a childish fashion. This considering the fact that I agreed to compromise with another user on leaving the "Press section" divided in "Pre-War and War". It was *you* who started this edit war, *you* who decided to call an administrator, and now that the page is frozen due to your request, you are complaining that you don't like the statu quo? Well, you could have avoided all that by talking to me instead of assuming bad faith.--201.252.32.7 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * IP addresses 200.110.209.235 and 201.252.32.7 were used for edits, you can note the switch after my comment (notice a comment and attempt to engage in talk that is denied above).  Note that above the IP editor admits to the both set of edits, including the removal of verified comment.  I would also point out a request to a version that belongs to neither editor.  I'm happy for a non-involved admin to take a look and judge my request on its merits.  Justin talk 02:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't speak for the other IP user, but he is clearly NOT me. You can verify this simply from a Whois query, IP (200.110.209.235) is in Quilmes, while I (201.252.32.7) am in Capital Federal, that's a 22 km distance. Furthermore, you can see that there's a three minute difference between some of his edits and mine, and his edits seem to have an anti-Argentina bias (replacing "occupation" with "invasion"), while you are accussing me of the opposite. I believe this is an honest mistake, and it's easy to get confused, but again, I did not change IPs... those are not my edits. I made constructive edits, or at least I tried to. --201.252.32.7 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple of points:
 * I don't revert constructive edits. Your edits were not constructive, you removed sourced material critical of Argentina, so it seems clear to me they were done with a political agenda.
 * You edit-warred to keep those edits. See WP:3RR, you broke that rule, had I reported you, you'd be blocked right now. The only reason I didn't was the two IP edits made blocking meaningless; you might like to look up sockpuppetry as well.
 * Checking the edit history both IP addresses were used to make these edits.
 * The only reason I didn't make a 3RR report is that two IP addresses were used. I did check the Whois, geographic location is meaningless in Internet terms and minutes apart is also meaningless; if I desire I can rig a proxy in seconds.
 * Three separate editors on vandal patrol reverted your edits. Edit warring is completely the wrong thing to do, you were seeking to change a consensus text, the correct thing to do was to take the issue to the talk page.
 * Its clear from your comments that you know and understand Wiki policies, you'd know an IP edit usually heightens vandalism suspicions. You should also know how to avoid an edit war and that reverting vandalism is the exception to WP:3RR.
 * Its also difficult to WP:AGF when you start crowing that the current locked version is yours. Justin talk 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many cooks spoil the broth on Wikipedia so statements often get detached from their refs. Jimmy Burns: The land that lost its heroes, 1987, Bloomsbury Publishing, ISBN 0-7475-0002-9 is the source to "the Madres de Plaza de Mayo were exposed to death threats from ordinary people." and "Pre-war:La Prensa..". --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was certain that comment had been sourced previously, thanks. Justin talk 11:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the word 'invasion' means something terrible in Spanish since 200.110.209.235 tried to remove the word four times over three days. The Spanish Wikipedia states "día de la invasión de las Islas por parte del ejército argentino" in es:Guerra de las Malvinas. It is either pure vandalism (which seldom is persistent) or some nationalist trying to euphemise the situation in 1982. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * support: The source to the IP's first edit did not say what he was stating; Every civilian Argentine president up to date, however, has vowed to pursue this claim by peaceful means. And neither do the additional sources that he added! Secondly there is no point mentioning the difference in the address's found on your WHOIS pages, these are merely the location of your nearest ISPs. Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec with both) There are a few of comments that I think are worth making here:

First, I'd like to give out a friendly reminder of WP:3RR and WP:BRD, particularly to the IPs (since Justin and the others know all about them already). If you are reverted you should bring the point to discussion, in order to attain consensus for your edits. Now, as new users you are not expected to have read all the rules before diving in, but it might be a good idea to take a look now I've pointed them out.

Second, to the IP, we do often quote books on Wikipedia, since not everyone has access to every book, and we want our articles to be verifiable to all. WP:V says: When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.. I should also say that foreign language sources should in general have the relevant parts translated into English so that (in this case) non-speakers of Spanish can understand.

Now, this is the edit in contention. The first point is on presidents. So far, we have sources confirming this for Presidents Alfonsín, Menem, De la Rúa and Néstor Kirchner - meaning that based on List of heads of state of Argentina we are missing Presidents Saá, Duhalde and Cristina Kirchner (plus possibly Puerta and Camaño, though that list doesn't consider them to be presidents). Now, in Saá's case it strikes me that it would be no surprise if he didn't say anything either way about the Falklands - during his week in office, with debts the country couldn't afford and an alarmingly overvalued currency peg, he had rather more immediate problems to be dealing with. It's a bit of a technicality, and in spirit I believe the edit to be accurate (that since the downfall of the Military dictatorship, the policy has been for pursuit by peaceful means) - but the wording isn't supported by references right now.

Looking at the rest of the edits, they deal almost entirely with the conditions under the Military régime. I think a fair amount of the information is fairly relevant background information, but at the same time this article is very long (120kB). We should really be thinking of cutting this down, leaving "Falklands War" as an overview article detailing the headline events and then farming off the smaller details to more specific articles. I can see where Justin's coming from when he calls this POV, since the pro-Brits tend to concentrate on the nature of the Argentine régime in justifying the British action. For my part, I think we should concentrate fairly narrowly on the war, rather than going into details of the régime. These points are a bit outside the scope of this article if that scope is as narrowly defined as I think it should be.

The other thing to mention is that in the UK and probably elsewhere in the English-speaking world, the reputation of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo makes them almost irreproachable in many people's eyes - a better reputation, perhaps, than in Argentina where they are better known and more open to scrutiny (as things tend to look cleaner when looked at from a greater distance). The idea that they might get death threats from the ordinary public - as opposed to the régime - gives the Anglophone audience a good idea of the level of feeling at the time in Argentina in a way that is difficult to describe by other means. Pfainuk talk 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I am declining the edit request, since it is not clear that there is a consensus for the changes. If things can't be worked out, try Dispute resolution. --Elonka 03:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * support to an unblocking: The IP user "removed the comment about the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo suffering death threats from "ordinary people" because it was NOT SOURCED and I consider it to be a false assertion. You may, of course, add that sentence again if you find a source for it.". Statements often get detached from their refs. Jimmy Burns: The land that lost its heroes, 1987, Bloomsbury Publishing, ISBN 0-7475-0002-9 is the source to "the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo were exposed to death threats from ordinary people." --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking Since when did we allow IP vandals to dictate article content? Clearly the IP vandal isn't interested in discussing his edit other than to crow the current locked version is his.  Sourced content has been removed for clearly POV reasons.  Since when did we allow vandals to trump WP:AGF, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus, all of which have been stomped all over here. Justin talk 00:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support unblocking: Incidents like this is why blocking an editor should be done before blocking a page. Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, user Justin A. Kuntz reverted everything regardless of the validity of it. Please explain to me why you removed sourced content regarding the 1985 trial to the military juntas in the political section? Or why you removed content regarding the lack of press freedom in the military regime, also backed by plenty of sources? I'm not going to edit anything anymore, but would somebody look into this, please? He's reverting much more than just the "controversial" or objectionable material. --201.252.101.127 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me to be going beyond what's relevant to this article. The fact that the war ultimately led to the dowfall of the Junta is relevant, what happened to them after that isn't really.  David Underdown (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the part about every argentine president is a bit of OR or synthesis. Some of the rest is indepth info about the junta we don't really need (There is already too much in the article that is extraneous to be honest). There might be a bit of two that could otherwise go in, but it is mostly a good faith but unnecessary series of edits. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)  (ec)


 * Guys, I may have accidentally removed some material in tidying up some vandalism in the article. I wouldn't normally have removed all the comments about press censorship.  The rest was OR or synthesis.  Although I've no ojection to adding it back in principle, it does appear to be going beyond the Falklands War subject and a more simple statement that the media was controlled by the military Junta would be appropriate.  Thoughts?  Justin talk 16:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum. BTW don't know if you guys missed it but thats the third IP that has been used to comment about these edits.  So much for someone claiming they only ever used 1 IP.  Justin talk 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be interpreted in two ways:
 * Good faith: The guy has a dynamic IP address and the IP number is therefore switching.
 * Bad faith: He's responsible for all 201.250.36.218/201.250.27.220's exaggeration of British losses in various Falklands battles and 200.110.209.235's persistent removal of "invasion" - a word even used by the Spanish Wikipedia. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You would have a point if the guy hadn't insisted he only used one IP. And the two previous IP addresses were responsible for the same edits....and they were different ISP. Anyway did you have any objections to my suggestion.  Justin talk 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Both IP's in this thread are registered to the same place (presumably the same ISP) in Buenos Aires Capital District, whereas the one removing the word "invasion" was registered to an ISP in Quilmes. It looks to me like the IP's on this ISP are dynamically assigned - and if so, either this user is running two machines on different ISP's or these are different people.  It would, I believe, be rather unlikely that a user would be dynamically assigned exactly the same IP two sessions in a row, and the changeover (3 minutes between 00:30 and 00:33 UTC on 28 October) is pretty quick.  That said, I'm hardly an expert in these things.


 * On the edit, I'll go with your proposal, Justin. But I would say that this article is very long (as of 1 November it is number 560 on the list of longest articles on Wikipedia) and that we should look at splitting sections off into separate articles and then summarising only the major points here. Pfainuk talk 00:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that 201.252.32.7 (after this called Alpha) did any of the 'invasion' and exaggeration stuff. He should have created a user account because he showed up in the middle of a vandal attack by IP addresses close to his. I believe that Justin was confused by 200.110.209.235 (after this called Beta)'s intermediate edit and mixed up the two IP editors. Alpha understandable got mad because of the accusation of switching IP addresses. I understand why King of Hearts saw it as an edit war and protected the page. Alpha should however had been more participating in the discussion during the protection even though his version was the locked one.
 * We maybe take for granted that people understand that the press is censored in a dictatorship as Argentina 1982. What Alpha might wanted to tell was that wartime censorship was business as usual in Argentina - to explain why blatant lies were published. But the article is still too long. If Beta was a sock puppet of Alpha it wasn't to avoid 3RR because they didn't reverted the same parts. Beta was 'only' deleting "invasion and" again and again. I see nothing shady with Alpha's switch to another IP address (201.252.101.127) after the unprotection of the page - he could have been unplugged in the meantime and received another IP.
 * At the top of this section "making a series of POV edits but when I posted on his talk page he switched IP addresses". Alpha's user talk is void, Beta's user talk has Justin's message.
 * My conclusion is that Justin in the heat of the battle mixed up Alpha and Beta for the same person - it should be remembered that the "Battle of this" and "Battle of that" articles were attacked simultaneously by 201.250.36.218/201.250.27.220. If Alpha had created a user page account it would have been more transparent and the protection could have been avoided. Maybe Justin should have reverted Alpha's edit in sections with a more detailed edit summary. British user reverted an Argentine user's edit with a "rv series of POV edits" - it's the Falklands War all over again ;-)
 * Alpha wanted to add something not knowing that the article is too long. In the future an Alpha-2 should be reverted with an "See Talk page please" and a section with "This article is too long already and so on". --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You might well be right, I could have mixed up the two. But WP:AGF would indicate that you shouldn't assume that just because I'm British I'm reverting because the other is Argentine.  I have worked closely on Falklands related articles with Argentine editors.  I've been accused by Brits of being pro-Argentine, and by Argentines as pro-British - so I guess I hit the middle.  Its also clear from the IP comments that isn't a wiki virgin we were dealing with.  You clear up a misunderstanding on the talk page not by edit warring.  Justin talk 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible that Alpha IS a wiki virgin else he would have feared the 3RR. Justin and Ryan4314 were reverting him so he would have been blocked pretty soon. Alpha is rather articulated but I couldn't find evidence of British English or US. Alpha probably has a higher education where he learned to insert references but not "to cite entire quotes from books". There can be many reasons why people don't create user accounts - maybe they don't want to get stuck here, maybe they wrongly think it's too expensive. He's probably scared away now ;-)
 * As an outsider you can easily step into a minefield - personally I inserted some F-15E Strike Eagle information in the F-15 Eagle page. That was removed instantly because F-15E got its own page. Fair enough so I inserted a line at the top to avoid other users in repeating my mistake but the local 'silver back' removed it.
 * Regarding Justin's origin I was describing how Alpha could have catch it. Unfortunately Wikipedia contains nationalists like Beta with badly hidden agendas and in an act of paranoia Alpha could have misjudged Justin as one - not knowing AGF. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a very serious problem with this page: tl;dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.91.18 (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
I lived in England during the Falklands war and the section "Lead up to the conflict" could, and probably should, apply to Britain as well. Britain was in the midst of a dire economic crisis precipitated by the policies of the Thatcher government, and as a result Thatcher was the most unpopular Prime Minister in history, etc.

The invasion caused England to be convulsed by a nationalistic outburst, racist jingoism was common in the leading popular newspapers like the Sun and Mirror. All the content in the section named above could as usefully be applied to England as to Argentina. It was fucking disgusting and shaming as an Englishman to watch it.

The Falklands war, and this was mirrored more recently in the US with 9/11 and the Bush administration, was the making of Thatcher and lead directly to her re election. Argentina does not have a monopoly on unprincipled politicians capitalizing on conflict to distract populations from economic mis management. The fact that Thatcher seized on the opportunity handed her is no less interesting than that Galtieri initiated it.

It would be useful if someone would research and write about this aspect of the conflict.

FQ1513 (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You should know as an Englishman, that the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, includes a lot more than just England; like three other countries for example. I'd also suggest you actually read the article in particular the press part of the article, where it already notes the jingoistic headlines in the papers.  The political part of the article notes the impact on Thatcher's career.  What you want is already in there, though its written in accordance with WP:NPOV not the POV slant you seem to want.  Justin talk 09:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your native tongue is English? Ryan 4314   (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Labour was teasing the UK government that they "prevented" a Falkland invasion in 1978 (Labour PM Callaghan) so anything but sending the Task Force would have replaced her as a Prime Minister. I'm not saying she didn't benefited from the war, but why didn't she call an election right after the war instead of waiting to June 1983? Furthermore the Royal Navy also seized on the opportunity. They could either loose a few of their ships in action or a lot of them at the planned massive cuts - if UK won they would have proved their value. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it was ARGENTINA that INVADED and not Britain therefore if anyone was prone to outbursts of nationalism and jingoism (on which the Argentinian dictatorship was surviving) it is likely to be Argentina. This is not the section to discuss Thatchers policies, however when you bear in mind that Churchill was a key player in winning the Second World War and was then promptly voted out straight away it is highly unlikely that winning the Falklands war allowed Thatcher to win two more elections in a row. Secondly i would also like to point out that the people who live in the Falkland Islands (and really its only fair that they get a say) would sing her praises till the day they die. Finally i think that if any countries sovereign territory was invaded then the people of that country have a right to be angry at the invaders and it is only natural that they would feel a sense of anger and injustice. I doubt the people of Argentina would be happy if Chile marched into the Tierra Del Fuego for example. ([User: Willsi72])Willski72 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Buck raids
I have edited the first paragraph or so of the BB section. As it stood, part of it made no sense ("military impact hard to judge because the raids consumed lots of fuel") and part was internally inconsistent - the amount of damage and the details of that damage varying inside the same section. My previous edit was reverted - unless there are urgent reasons, kindly *DISCUSS* your concerns before wiping out the effort other people put in. Toby Douglass (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is you don't seem to have made any attempt to sort out the referencing to go with your changes. You're leaving the previous referencing in place, and adding you're own material around it which is potentially misleading.  We need references for the effect on Harrier operaitons, and the other references need to be moved around so taht they are still relevant.  David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit also introduced your POV that the effect of the raids was, to quote your edit, "practically zero". Well opinion is mixed, so it didn't conform to WP:NPOV for start.  As David points out you haven't made any attempt to sort out the reference to go with changes and the material you added presented your own viewpoint, which is WP:OR.  And offensive posts on my Talk Page aren't going to convince me you're right.  You've been a member for a long time and really should know better.  And you're partly correct in taking the issue to the talk page but utterly wrong in edit warring to keep it. Justin talk 17:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They should tattoo this on all new wikipedians: Bold Revert Discuss -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL your "contributions" were entirely your own views on the matter. Plus you added these views before citations to make it appear as though these views were referenced. Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Commanders list
Our article on Moore states that he only took over command from Thompson on 30 May, and even then he continued with the plan that Thompson had developed following the loss of the helicopters during the sinking of Atlantic Conveyor, so it does seem pretty reasonable to also list Thompson amongst the commanders. David Underdown (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, slight off topic, but I just noticed we don't even have an article for Mario Menéndez, yet we have articles about Lt Col Italo Piaggi. Don't worry, I don't mind stating it, might take a while to get around it though, so just letting you all know. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Location: references
You may notice some new items in the references with the prefix Location:. These references have hidden metadata like that outputted by the template coord and allow wikipedia to interoperate with map sites like google, yahoo and mapquest. For further info on how to see and use these, please see further explanatory notes here. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has existing templates which allow users to find places on the mapping sites you list, and many more. The template instances - they were not references - I have removed from the infobox are not used by Coord nor anything like them. They were causing the Infobox's existing hCalendar microformat to include rogue characters in its location property. Please do your experimenting in a sandbox, not article space, as I have repeatedly asked you to do. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, users can no longer do a google search of where South Georgia islands are. As usual, we are treated to the vague pronouncement that something is illegal, and that anything that Mr. Mabbet disagrees with is an experiment that should be done in a sandbox.  Sorry, but your pronouncement of "bad metadata" is insufficient.   Users get mapping functionality with the change, but you have reverted it, so they are denied the functionality.  For what?  What harm has the change done that deserved the revert?  We don't know. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting
Second revert, so I'm bringing this up on talk.

I oppose the edits to the first paragraph as the first user appears to want. First, he wants to say that sovereignty and the name of the islands has long been disputed by Argentina. If the British hadn't been interested then they wouldn't have bothered to respond and the war wouldn't have happened. And it's not like 1982 was the first time the Argentines had had de facto control of the islands, as this implies.

The second issue is the addition of "British-controlled". The islanders weren't British-controlled during the war. That's the whole point. If the islands had been British-controlled during the war then why on earth would Thatcher have sent a task force down to the South Atlantic? Pfainuk talk 22:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree and endorse revert. Justin talk 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Move Reversion
If you check the archive section of the talk page you will find names frequently surface as a very sensitive issue. A lot of alternatives are pushed by various fringe groups. There was a strong push to include the fringe usage in the article and the poor compromise that resulted was to the fringe terms in a section at the bottom. Please don't open that can of worms again. Justin talk 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Falklands Conflict
It is to my knowledge that war was never declared with Argentina over the islands, thus making it a conflict. The British Army website on the matter seems to back this up here:, clearly stating "After the 1982 conflict...". Although the common name for it is the Falklands war. --Ali2234 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We tend not to go for technical names on wikipedia, but the name most commonly used. Also in English "conflict" can be used as another word for war. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualties
Is necessary to have twice the numbers of kills in the open paragraph ? They do not even match --Jor70 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They do match 255 servicemen + 3 Falklanders = 258 British deaths. But yes there is no need to mention it twice.  Justin talk 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, double-post.

Royal Marines
May I suggest a section for the Royal Marines? And the massive role that they played? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.21.124 (talk) 12:39, 26 May, 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try at British ground forces in the Falklands War. Many services from both sides played a massive role --Jor70 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said Jor. Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thks Ryan. talking about a new section, what about one about countries that give explicit military support ?. For example Peru,Venezuela and Brazil for Argentina, USA and France to UK. --Jor70 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

US Support?
The article suggests the United States provided Britain military supplies during the Falklands War.

Thatcher's The Downing Street Years says Reagan refused any assistance.


 * As a minor example please read and sign your posts! --Jor70 (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
the article is now aprox. 170 KB long. How about moving all 3rd-Parties issues to another page?


 * Falklands War
 * Falklands War
 * Falklands War
 * Falklands War
 * Falklands War

There is a lot of dispersed details that belong to this theme. --Keysanger (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Between them, these sections only account for c. 10kB of information out of a total of 129kB total (including mark-up and so on). This would not significantly reduce the length of the article.


 * In terms of readable prose, which is the standard used by WP:LENGTH, this article is around 81000 characters long (so, about 79kB), of which your proposal would cut around 4700 (a bit over 4½kB). As in terms of raw code, removing these sections would not give us a significant reduction in length in terms of readable prose.  Thus I would oppose this split as probably being a waste of time.


 * WP:LENGTH says that an article of this size "[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". I'm open to suggestions.  Maybe the more detailed sections of the War section (which is about half of the article) could be summarised and split into a new article or articles.  Maybe we could split off the sections about the consequences of the war into an article Consequences of the Falklands War.  But I think that not splitting is also a viable option. Pfainuk talk 14:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * summarised sections would lead to controversy due removing key factors. If it is so necessary to reduce the article I think we should move complete sections. e.g. leave #3 as "aftermath" (with non relevant text, just a Military,Political,Medical, etc effects can be seen here and move #3 thru #8 as is to a new article --Jor70 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with Pfainuk, I simply don't see the merit in the proposal. It removes a tiny amount of prose and in reality is a waste of time. Justin talk 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the article is 129 kb and not 170kb long. But I think that 4700/81000=5,8% is significant. On the other hand the images, not counted in readable prose, will remain there and that makes the page heavier. --Keysanger (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This article would still be around 74½kB long in terms of readable prose (and 119kB in terms of code), so it would still be well over the ideal length for an article (which WP:LENGTH defines as 30-50kB). It doesn't make much difference whether it's 74kB or 79kB - it should still probably be split.


 * Further, the article that would come out would be very disjointed It would start by covering diplomacy between Argentina and the rest of Latin America and moving on to the pope.  Then it would suddenly have two paragraphs on to military factors  - the Warsaw Pact watching the war, and a line on North Atlantic arms export controls.  Then it would go on to Norway's role in providing the British with intelligence.  Aside the fact that all deal primarily with countries other than Argentina and the UK during the Falklands War, these sections have no mutual connection - some are diplomatic, some military, some intelligence.  I don't see that they make a viable article on their own. Pfainuk talk 17:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Argentine appeals court gives go-ahead to Falklands War criminal charges
This Wikinews article may not last and may be deleted for reasons given at that page. It has been temporarily located at this temporary WP sandbox page here in case some/all of it can be verified/used on wikipedia. Due to the length of this article page about the Falklands War, perhaps some/all of the content could be placed on a sup article page, but I don't know what title it should bear.SriMesh | talk  14:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note on the temporary subpage. I've moved it to Talk:Falklands War/sandbox, as per SUBPAGE. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sun became notorious for
We seem to have a disagreement about how to frame the newspaper The Sun in this article. One of the key sources comes from an opinion editorial (not a news piece) printed by The Guardian, a competitor of The Sun. Here is the spectrum we are forced (apparently, by certain Wikipedia editors) to choose from:
 * The Sun became notorious for its jingoistic, often reckless, bloody-minded, ruthless, black-humoured, xenophobic, and triumphalist headlines...
 * (which captures most of the "notorious" descriptions found in the Guardian piece.)


 * The Sun became notorious for its jingoistic and xenophobic headlines...
 * (which selectively takes only some of the "notorious" descriptions found in the Guardian piece.)


 * The Sun published notably pro-war headlines...
 * (which acknowledges in an encyclopedic way The Sun's position, without relying on a competing newspaper's opinion editorial to inflame the matter)

Now, which is the description of The Sun's role that best meets our WP:NPOV policy? Which best meets our WP:RS and WP:V policies? This has been discussed before, with one still-active editor being accused of "repairing a wristwatch with a sledgehammer" and being "trigger-happy with the Undo button". I tend to agree, but let's have a public discussion about the specific concern I have outlined above. I am extremely uncomfortable allowing a competing newspaper like The Guardian to have the editorial sway over another newspaper like The Sun, here in a supposedly NPOV reference like Wikipedia. Is it really "neutral" to append terms like "jingoistic" and "xenophobic", when "pro-war" quite adequately suffices? What is the agenda of certain editors here? -- Thekohser 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is about the Falklands war, and not the leanings of the Sun newspaper, or the opinions of it by competitors. The headlines in question were notorious, so it's relevant to relate them here, but I believe that it's up to the reader to decide what they reflect about the paper. Hohum (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If we use all the words then it really needs to be placed in quotes. A large numebr of people in the UK would have no problem, I don't think, with the characterisation of jingoistic certainly, "Gotcha" was hardly a balcned, nuanced headline, and The Sun is hardly known for it's welcome of immigrants etc - but then I'm a Guardian reader.  However, bear in mind that the Guardian article comes from its media supplement, not the main paper, this specifically reviews the rest of the media each week with commentators from across the political spectrum - indeed in this case the article is written by someone who worked at '@The Sun during the Falklands conflict.  David Underdown (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well lets at least be honest about this. I have serious doubts that the originator of this thread is seriously interested in improving this article, he appears to have got ticked off after one of my reverts on vandal patrol here, he apparently didn't like my dismissal of his complaint on my talk page here , see .  So it would appear he has decided to have a wander through my contribution history (eg ) looking to pick a fight.  So questioning the agenda of certain editors is decidedly pointy ie being directed at myself.  Check with Necessary Evil, I'd originally opposed that edit, I came to realise he was actually correct and so I agreed to it.  I doubt that anyone in the UK would argue with describing the Sun as a) jingoistic or b) xenophobic and as David already pointed out the article in question WAS WRITTEN BY A JOURNALIST WHO WORKED AT THE SUN.  Thus far, I have simply chosen to ignore the eloquent but deliberately barbed comments directed in my direction but as it seems you have chosen to drag others into this, effectively wasting their time and editing efforts I felt I should bring it to their attention.  To be honest, I probably made a mistake dismissing your comments on my talk page as a POV rant, for which I apologise.  As to the rest, you seriously need to get a sense of perspective.  Justin talk 18:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, he worked at The Sun? I guess there's no chance, then, that he was a disgruntled ex-employee, and we should assume that he was therefore a perfectly neutral observer of how The Sun was "universally" seen by others in Britain.  It still begs the question, if it's okay to say "jingoistic" and "xenophobic", why are you drawing the line at my additional, more comprehensive, "sum of human knowledge" edit that included "often reckless, bloody-minded, ruthless, black-humoured, and triumphalist".  Why are jingoistic and xenophobic okay, but none of the other notorious terms used by the former Sun employee writing for publication in the Guardian?  Maybe I'm following the past edits of a certain editor because they are so painfully, obviously in need of wider attention and remediation.  That you would classify my correction of a highly incorrect map label about Italian expansion in 1940 as something falling under your practice of "vandal patrol" speaks volumes. -- Thekohser 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, this just gets better and better -- Roy Greenslade was the editor of the Daily Mirror from 1990-91, yet another competitor of The Sun. So, we've got a verifiable and reliable source (the Guardian), but the author of the opinion piece has nothing but conflict of interest in meting out his opinion of his ex-employer.  But that shall be the gold standard for Wikipedia?  Wow.  Just, wow. -- Thekohser 19:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you suggest he was disgruntled? He was at the Sun from 81-86, and then went to the Sunday Times (like the Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch), from there to the Mirror, and then a general media commentator, writing in part for the Guardian, but also other newspapers, he also has academic credentials,see Roy Greenslade.  David Underdown (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason at all to suggest he was disgruntled David, see for a class piece of Greenslade commentary on the Sun.  But then the edit in the article isn't the use, its pursuing a vendetta against an editor who has upset him.  And it isn't even my edit, it was Necessary Evil.  Its all about a spot of wikidrama.  Justin talk 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When was the last time you saw a happy ex-employee describe his previous employer favorably with such words as reckless, bloody-minded, and ruthless? Wow, academic credentials you say?  I've never seen an academically-credentialed professional harbor a biased point of view! -- Thekohser 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether this is wikidrama or not is irrelevant, and accusations that it is are likely to cause far more drama than simply resolving what to include in the article. Focus on that and it's over. Hohum (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed concentrating on the resolving what to include in the article should be the focus; but being unnecessarily antagonistic and the use of sarcasm and hyperbole is intended to raise tension. Posting the dispute elsewhere, without informing other editors is also ill-mannered.  There is actually zero evidence that the Gruniad article is written by a disgruntled ex-employee, the same disgruntled ex-employee has also written articles making positive comments about the Sun.  There is no reason to disregard the Gruniad article as a source, the reasons for doing so are a strawman nothing more.  But then as previously pointed out, there is no intention by one party to focus on content, the editor concerned is simply being pointy.  Justin talk 10:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Thekohser. Please open Falklands War - United Kingdom. Find the line with "The Sun became notorious for its patriotic, jingoistic and xenophobic headlines…" and click on the cite-note. It shows up that the source is "Harris" i.e. "Robert Harris: GOTCHA!, the Media, the Government and the Falklands Crisis, 1983, Faber & Faber, ISBN 0-571-13052-6". The Guardian website is related to the "was condemned for the "Gotcha" headline following the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano." line below. Unless Robert Harris is some disgruntled former Sun employee there is no problem. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange, the words "jingoistic" and "xenophobic" appear in the Guardian opinion piece, but I haven't yet found them in the Harris work.  Might you have a page number? -- Thekohser 03:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would really like to know how you can't find two words in a book you admit you don't have? See . Justin talk 10:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of Stick it up your punter and the Robert Harris book at home, and I can get references for this. I don't think there's too much doubt that the Sun's headlines were jingoistic and very much pro-war... I don't think that should be difficult to source, even without the Guardian piece. I'll get you a page number tonight, Kohsie Thalweg &amp; Nimbus (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

One suggestion that I hope will be helpful: often when there is a controversy about neutrality, it can be helpful to "go meta". The question here is whether or not Wikipedia can or should say that, as a factual matter, "X was the case". Whenever this is problematic for some reason, it can be helpful to pop out a level and just say "According to A, X was the case." In the current case, the question appears to be whether an opinion editorial is a valid source for a particular claim. In the case of uncontroversial claims, that might be the case, but this appears to be a (somewhat) controversial claim. There are many possible wordings which would let the reader know who says this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is, it isn't a controversial claim in the slightest. British readers don't disagree with the description.  What we're seeing here is an American editor disrupting the article to make a point, simply 'cos he was ticked off someone reverted one of his edits.  Justin talk 19:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the reasons for the complaint, what's the harm in going meta to resolve the issue? I believe that whatever one may think of the merits of the claim it is surely strengthened by being attributed to the source.  (I am inclined, by the way, to trust you completely about the merits of the claim.)  "Jingoistic" and "xenophobic" are negative terms and I think that - speaking quite generally - Wikipedia can try to avoid directly making such claims.
 * "Writing in The Guardian, so-and-so, former of The Sun, characterized the paper's headlines as ." The Guardian is a reputable newspaper and the fact that the guy used to work there (do I have that part right?) lends additional credence to his claims.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, they're not likely to fix it that way. They want it clear that it was universally held that The Sun was jingoistic and xenophobic, and that every person in the United Kingdom felt that way.  It remains a mystery who were the thousands of people (OBVIOUSLY NOT British) who purchased the "STICK IT UP YOUR JUNTA" t-shirts that were printed by The Sun.  They must have been a sleeper cell of jingoistic and xenophobic consumers.  Certainly not "patriotic" British. -- Thekohser 03:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense on any level. Insisting that the Sun was jingoistic and xenophobic hardly suggests that there weren't any jingoistic and xenophobic readers, especially since it had one of the largest circulations. However, if a reader of this article can't work out that the Sun is jingoistic and xenophobic from the GOTCHA headline, there is little hope that including a quote of someone else saying it will make the penny drop either.
 * There certainly was some jingoism going around in the UK at the time, although it started to taper off once casualties for both sides started adding up. Looking back from 2009, I think far less Brits harbour jingoistic thoughts now - but that is beside the point.
 * The relevant question I think, is: Is it relevant to the article that the reader be told that some other source thinks that the Sun was jingoistc and xenophobic? Is opinion about the reporting style of a newspaper relevant to the war, or is the headline being included because it is notable? Why is it notable? Because it reflects a jingoistic and xenophobic approach to the war by the British public? That would seem to be synthesis, unless it properly supported. So, my suggestion is to include the headline, don't bother with a secondary opinion about the style of the Sun - the reader can work that out for themselves. If the article wants to explore the idea that elements of the British public were pro war or jingoistic, etc. then that should be done with its own references. Hohum (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the relevent fact here for inclusion is that it was a famous headline and possibly the fact that it came in for some criticism. If we include all the gubbins, I'd suggest we go with what Jimbo suggests and overtly attribute it unless we are finding multiple sources for that specific headline. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its relevant because the Sun's coverage was in sharp contrast to the rest of the British media, it was jingoistic and xenophobic to the point that there was ritual burnings of the Sun on task force ships following "Gotcha" and the suggestion by a Sun reporter of running a competition for readers to inscribe messages on bombs was rejected by servicemen. I really see no reason for a change, the person advocating it can't even form a cogent argument and has to resort to the most ridiculous hyperbole; yeah sarcasm always a good way to win friends and influence people. Justin talk 20:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While the OP has hardly enamoured himself to me with his antics elsewhere, we should perhaps put his motives to one side on this. That it was seen as inappropiate is certainly citable and can be put in. If someone is checking on that book ref, I'd be tempted to say wait for that and find out what the book says exactly. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be good if you could reference this supposed opposition to the Sun's robustly pro-British sovereignty attitude. Nevard (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If, instead of arguing, anyone spends five minutes searching for references to this headline on Google Books, reliable sources describing it as "notorious" and "jingoistic" are easily found.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * As it is easy to find reliable sources describing it and the Sun's coverage as 'patriotic'. Nevard (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Points. A) The Guardian opinion piece is not the cite for that sentence, Harris is. B) The current wording was hammered out here. The purpose of the reference to the Guardian piece (among others) is to reflect the universal condemnation of the "Gotcha" headline, which (as pointed out above) led to ritualistic burning of the Sun by servicemen.

The words under contention:

xenophobia A pathological fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners. xenophobic  Suffering from xenophobia, a fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners. Now as I said during the previous debate it could be construed as possibly too strong an adjective in this case but its use was intended to convey that The Sun's coverage dehumanised the enemy as "The Argies". I'm happy to consider an alternative adjective but that is an issue related to The Sun's coverage that needs to be considered in the article.

jingoism Excessive patriotism or aggressive nationalism esp. as regards foreign policy. The Sun's coverage was overtly and excessively nationalistic with numerous headlines such as Stick it up your Junta and Gotcha. I contend that jingoism was an adequate description.

And again as I pointed out elsewhere you don't have to either xenophobic or jingoistic to be patriotic. In fact, it was that well known Pinko Commie Subversive Winston Churchill who talked about magnanimity in victory. A point that would probably be dismissed as OR but if you asked Toms or Matelots what they thought about the coverage by the Sun, I can tell you that most were utterly disgusted by it; are they somehow not patriotic. Now if we are to substitute "patriotic" the article effectively says that the majority of the British press was neutral, the Mirror Anti-War and the Sun was patriotic. Would that be a balanced description of the press coverage of the Falklands War? I think not. Justin talk 08:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevard writes "As it is easy to find reliable sources describing it and the Sun's coverage as 'patriotic'." Absolutely not the case.  I could find one passing comment which can be interpreted that way, but otherwise, just glancing down the Google book previews, one finds "notorious" "infamous" "bloodthirsty" "jingoistic."  As pointed out above, this article just needs to report what the sources say.  This is not a balanced debate in the literature.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Jingoism is fine; xenophobic is too much. Jingoism can be empirically observed; Xenophobic is mind reading. Why not use 'dehumanizing language'? Anarchangel (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mirage Dissimilar Combat Training
The comment recently reverted about dissimilar combat training againts Mirage fighters of the French Air Force happens to be true. It is referenced in Sharky Ward's book. However, I would suggest as a minor detail of the conflict its too much down in the weeds to merit inclusion. Justin talk 11:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * on the other hand, I think is a clear example of the french active support and merit inclusion. The same way the countless photos of usaf C-141 on ascension island. Of course this is not to underestimate the uk effort at all but will put some things in context --Jor70 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Countless C-141? For which read a single C-141 bringing Shrike missiles and associated technicians to fit to a single Vulcan.  Dissimilar combat training is regularly and routinely practised in NATO.  Its a footnote in the history of the conflict nothing more.  Justin talk 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have pictures of at least 2 c-141 (serials 011 & 014) and even a C-5 ! and you know what I meant: the french were not training for nato at that point --Jor70 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsurprising as Ascension Island was a US transit base and an emergency shuttle diversion. The presence of US planes does not imply they were bringing supplies to the British.  And for information there is a range over the Bay of Biscay that has been used for years by British and French aircraft for dissimilar combat training.  It is routine, unremarkable and nothing more than a footnote.  Countless C-141 implies a multitude of aircraft bringing a continuous flow of materiel, that wasn't the case at all.  Justin talk 14:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dissimilar combat training is not controversial, Argentina fly planes from a multitude of nations and inevitably do dissimilar combat training with their neighbours. Justin can u give a page number for the Sharkey ref plz? Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)