Talk:Falklands War/Archive 9

War Crime Allegations
This pops up every now and again. Thus far the consensus has been that the material is basically WP:FRINGE, they are allegations of war crimes by British forces. They have been extensively investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. The edit I reverted was written from a POV to imply a) a British cover up and b) it happened; all the evidence shows it never did. If we want to go down that route, British editors will then want to include the documented cases where a) Argentine forces machine gunned unarmed British pilots struggling in the water after their helicopter was shot down b) Argentine forces displaying white flags then opening up on British forces going forward to accept their surrender c) an Argentine war "hero" who candidly brags about shooting a para officer in the back at Goose Green again after he went forward due to a white flag d) the imprisonment of the entire community of Goose Green in a hall without food or water, inadequate sanitation, no bedding and then failed to provide protection during the battle as required by the Geneva Convention, e) the hospital ship in Stanley who used its search lights to illuminate an SBS troop, f) transport of war materiel on hospital ships, g) storage of war materiel in a building marked as a field hospital and h) the manufacture, stockpiling and attempted use of Napalm. Thats just for starters.

Per WP:BRD the correct response after material is removed is to discuss to achieve a consensus not to immediately revert. Justin talk 10:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I would've reverted this if Justin hadn't got there first:

For example this incident is not mentioned anywhere on the article.
 * These claims were never confirmed or substantiated, which pales when you compare it to all the British investigation that went into Felix Artuso incident. Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The following has been removed:

It is properly referenced using an available online source in the form of a British newspaper for all to see. And yes we should include cases of situations in which Argentine soldiers broke the rules of war (use of napalm and use of hostages which I am happy to write if given half a chance).--Carlosbrunner (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm removing it again.  There were good policy based reasons for removing it, which you have not addressed.  You're deliberately writing this to imply there was a cover up; it fails WP:NPOV.  It is giving undue prominence to fringe material.  As Ryan points out its a single incident, which doesn't belong in an overview article.  You're also using references years out of date, for example thge Scotland Yard investigation concluded there was no evidence to substantiate the claims. Per WP:BRD you discuss before re-adding material that has been challenged.  Justin talk 11:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it's fringe and as such has no place in this main article. That said, such allegations and some other myths are part of history too, and if well sourced and presented in a NPOV manner, could possibly be used to initiate an article of its own. Apcbg (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have minimized your text entry, we can all see your addition to the article through the edit history and long pieces of text make the discussion hard to follow.

What is your rebuttal to my claim that this incident is not-notable enough for inclusion in the main Falklands article. Ryan 4314  (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Ryan4314) you are saying that these allegations are 'not-notable enough for inclusion in the main Falklands articles'. In other words you are telling me that you don't believe British war crimes took place in the battles? There are a number of British writers that admit that excesses took place such as the cutting of ears in the Battles of Goose Green and Mount Longdon and that mention the bayoneting of two non-combatants in the Battle of Mount Tumbledown?--Carlosbrunner (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL I knew this wouldn't take long, here come the allegations...
 * I believe you have misunderstood me, please re-read me first point here. Ryan 4314   (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the fact that
 * there were allegations of British war crimes, which the Argentine president (and therefore, I assume, many Argentinians) took seriously
 * the British investigated these allegations and dismissed them
 * (apparently, as far as I can tell) no third party (that would be prima facie impartial, such as a UN-appointed committee) investigated those allegations
 * should be mentioned in the article. These (i.e., the allegations and investigations, not the alleged  war crimes themselves) are facts, which may be relevant even today.
 * Similarly, if there are documented allegations about Argentine war crimes, they should be mentioned too, together with the results of the official investigations.
 * --The very model of a minor general (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no one is saying this should not be mentioned. Just not here, as noted above the article is already way too long.  It should also be written in a NPOV and not written to imply a cover up on the part of the British.  One contributor above already mentioned a separate article.  The edit we're arguing about was focused solely on alleged war crimes, the edit you're suggesting I have no problem with.  However, if we are going down that route, the interests of NPOV should also include allegations of war crimes committed by the Argentines and these are far more numerous, in many cases substantiated, in some cases by the perpetrators themselves who openly brag about them.
 * And to the POV pushing friend above, bad faith attacks are not tolerated here. For info, both Ryan and I have collaborated extensively on Falklands articles with Argentine editors to ensure that the Argentine perspective is represented.  I feel confident that the Argentine editors we've worked with would endorse our comments here.  Justin talk 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * bring this topic to the article is not only highly controversial but very difficult to cover in a balanced way. yes, we can find sources about carrizo allegations (there is even a brit movie about the bayonet) but there are also tons of stories of conscripts receiving a better treatment from the brits than from their own officers. on the other hand argentine reports about uk using their  hospital ship (many times overfly by the faa) for troop movements I think would not be easy to find on english sources so IMHO if is decide to cover this issue we should empathized such actions as fog of war and not as a generalized thing as is trying to be represented.  Balza always referred to the conflict as una guerra sin odio --Jor70 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jor, by the way regarding the claims regarding hospital ships, there were red cross observers on those ships; it didn't happen. Justin talk 14:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The following is an excerpt from The Independent (UK) story War heroes or murderers?: A police inquiry must rule when death on the battlefield is a crime (Sunday, 23 August 1992):

''Last week, this newspaper was told of another allegation, that after the battle a British helicopter pilot, acting in defiance of the conventions of war, refused to evacuate a badly wounded 17-year-old Argentine despite protests by medical staff. The man died. ''--Carlosbrunner (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That story dates from 1992, as noted above the conclusion of the investigation into Bramley's claims were there was no case to answer. Even the Argentine Government acknowledges there were no American mercenaries on Mount Longdon.  A grand total of four editors have now expressed the opinion this does not belong in this article, do you intend to address this or merely point to further out of date articles?  Justin talk 15:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The following is an excerpt from the book The Scars of War (HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, 1994)

British Major Robert Leitch, who was responsible for gathering and burying the Argentines killed on Mount Longdon, told British Military Historian Hugh McManners:

''Guys were shot with their hands in the air, surrendering. The bodies made this quite clear and it wasn't just the strange positions of cold and rigor mortis. They were standing in their trenches and had been clearly shot as the Paras assaulted over the top of them''.--Carlosbrunner (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing we might want to look for is a source that covers the war crime allegations from start to finish. That there were claims should perhaps be included (i'm not convinced. It is a claim made in all wars and all battles. Often falsely. Though I must admt I mostly agree with cicero, during war, laws sleep) but not in huge details when only made by one side who held their own investigation. I am, at this moment, unaware of any source that covers this without us needing to synthesise together a story through disjointed claims and counter claims, which will result in an unduly large and disjointed mess. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As Narson notes, there are accusations of war crimes in every war that is fought, and it should not be surprising that they were made in this case as well. This article is already a fair bit too long, and I do not think it should be made significantly longer. We can't include every single event or accusation made by either side in what is, after all, an article on the Falklands War as a whole. And per WP:UNDUE, we should exclude those events that are, in relative terms, less significant to the overall picture. The addition as it is proposed is far too detailed.

That's not to say that we shouldn't ever make any reference to such claims - but in this case I think they are best placed on more detailed articles if anywhere. Any reference must, of course, be balanced (and this one wasn't, focussing as it did on accusations by Argentina against Britain) and must reflect WP:UNDUE by not giving undue weight to relatively minor incidents (as this one did). Pfainuk talk 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

PfainukI agree when you say 'That's not to say that we shouldn't ever make any reference to such claims' but is Justin gonna give me a chance to do so with all the influence he has over you guys? I very much doubt it. I tried to be fair and even included the following paragraph:
 * The commander of Argentine land forces in the Falklands, Jorge Jofre pointed out that 'I never heard of anything like this happening, throughout the war or after it. If it happened, it was something that happens in every war, not accepting surrender through tiredness or fear or because of the loss of comrades. Of course it is not the norm, but since soldiers are men they can deviate from the norm.

Despite my good faith it was all removed. There was no attempt on the part of him in offering to rewrite what I had contributed. It's a pity, for the allegations of war crimes in the Falklands involved the Argentine president, the Scotland Yard, British and Argentine veterans and the media of both nations. Even a book was written in Argentina about it. Yet it is overlooked in the English Wikipedia but fortunately not in the Spanish Wikipedia.--Carlosbrunner (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

unindent

If you read the comments above, not one person has said this shouldn't be mentioned, just not in this article. Please don't insult people claiming your edit was balanced it wasn't. And lets have a look at the Spanish Wikipedia and the article you're crowing about :

"Crímenes contra soldados argentinos en Malvinas"

"Según el informe de la comisión militar argentina, soldados britanicos mataron a siete soldados heridos y a tres prisioneros de guerra argentinos, a los que obligaron a realizar tareas peligrosas en el campo de batalla.[5] El 1 de junio de 1982, una patrulla de soldados del Regimiento 12 de Infantería fue obligada a realizar tareas peligrosas bajo amenaza de pasar la noche a la intemperie y durante una explosión murieron tres de sus compañeros.[6] El diario inglés «The Independent» tambien señalo como responsable de crimenes de guerra contra soldados correntinos y chaqueños a un piloto de helicoptero britanico quien rehuso evacuar a un malherido joven conscripto quien a tiempo despues fallecio.[7] Los soldados británicos tambien mataron a cinco soldados argentinos que se replegaban luego de haberse ordenado la rendición según aseguró Víctor Catá vicepresidente en 1996 de la Casa del Veterano de Guerra.[8]"

"Crimes against Argentine soldiers in the Falklands"

"According to the report of Argentina's military committee, British soldiers killed seven soldiers wounded and three prisoners of war Argentines, who was forced to perform dangerous tasks in the battlefield. [5] On 1 June 1982, a patrol soldiers from 12 Infantry Regiment was forced to perform dangerous tasks under threat of spending the night outdoors and in an explosion killed three of his companions. [6] The English newspaper The Independent notes as responsible for war crimes against Chaco Corrientes soldiers and a British helicopter pilot who refused to evacuate a wounded young conscript who passed away after time. [7] The British troops also killed five Argentine soldiers who were retreating after having ordered the surrender as vice president said Victor Cata House in 1996 to the veterans." Now lets have a look at that shall we. There is no mention of the fact that these claims were examined by the British and no evidence found. The source quoted also does not support the edit. There is nothing neutral about it. However to give credit to the Spanish Wikipedia it was reverted several times. . It has also only just been introduced as well.

Not only that but the article mentions the usual nonsense about the conspiracy theory that Mitterand gave Thatcher "missile destruct codes". Its utter bollocks and as a G&C engineer of over 20 years experience I can tell you they don't exist outside of Hollywood. Justin talk 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Good faith? Having explained his reasons you turned round and accused Ryan "In other words you are telling me that you don't believe British war crimes took place in the battles? " He said no such thing, you have utterly failed to respond to a single comment and again no one has said this shouldn't be mentioned. Justin talk 09:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You say that the information is fringe; well, assuming it was, according to WP:FRINGE, even fringe subjects get treatment if they are notable, see Moon landing conspiracy theories. So let us not hear any more about fringe. If anything is fringe, it is the people ultimately responsible for it due to their place at the top of the chain of command, ie the British armed forces, issuing a negative proof or argument from ignorance fallacy by saying they did not find anything. And as for notability, it is war crimes we are talking about, not whether some politician spent too much on travel expenses.
 * What I believe should happen is that first, we need to determine if the information is fringe. The outcome of that will determine whether the accustions or the arguments against get the preferential coverage. If we cannot come to a consensus on that, the accusations and arguments against it must be given equal coverage. We have to be careful to not confuse equal coverage with equal number of words for each; if there is way more information in the arguments against the accusations, for example, then equal coverage is weighted towards more coverage for that.
 * The accusations are safely tucked away in diffs, and are not going anywhere. So chill about those. As of now, I have only seen assertions that there are arguments against; we need to see that first. Your move, Justin. Anarchangel (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Every war has war crimes and even more allegations. These claims were unsubstantiated - Non-notable.
 * It is fringe and it isn't notable (i.e. moon landings) either. Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As Ryan points out above, the material IS fringe. And I'll repeat myself, no one has said the material doesn't have a place in Wikipedia.  Every editor has said it should be mentioned but not in this overview article that is already bloated.  If it is mentioned, then as fringe material if it is notable enough your example of the Moon landing conspiracy theories is apposite; ie as we've suggested it doesn't get disproportionate coverage in this article.
 * If we're talking about equal coverage, as my Argentine colleague points out above the overwhelming majority of the Argentine POW will testify they were treated better by the British than their own officers. He also quotes Balza as referring to the conflict as una guerra sin odio (a literal translation is a war without hate).
 * By the way, Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, your comment "Your move, Justin" is needlessly combative, even if it were not intended that way. Regards, Justin talk 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noted the "your move" comment too, not very collegial. Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also note that no less than 6 separate editors (including an Argentine editor) have argued against including the material, giving their reasons. Rather than providing a rebuttal to any of those arguments Anarchangel has denied they exist, asking for them to be provided. Justin talk 08:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A few comments. Someone mentioned the Spanish Wikipedia's coverage of Falklands topics approvingly. I would suggest that this is a bad idea, since, as a rule, es.wiki rarely goes much closer to NPOV on Falklands topics than does the Argentine government. As such, the fact that something is mentioned on es.wiki is unlikely to convince many here of its suitability.

Anarchangel noted that fringe topics often get coverage. His argument is undermined by his own example: the closer parallel to this article is Apollo Program, whose only reference to the hoax claims is a link to the relevant article. I also note that other related and rather more verifiable incidents are left out of that article. The story of Apollo 13 is reduced to a half dozen or so sentences. The Apollo 15 postage stamp incident is never mentioned. Nor is Al Shephard's golf swing. All this is as it should be.

The fact that something is referenced does not mean that it belongs in a given article: if it did then all of our articles would be stupidly long. Some judgement has to be made as to how much coverage a given incident or claim should be given in a given article, based on how significant it is to the topic as a whole (based on principles such as WP:UNDUE).

In this case, if such accusations were common, or reflected a wider pattern, then maybe the fact of their existence would be more significant. As others have made clear, the opposite is the case. So far as we can tell, the allegation is of a single, isolated incident, while most captured Argentine soldiers were better treated by their British captors than by their own officers. All wars give rise to claims of war crimes, and the allegations concerned do not appear to be of particular significance beyond that.

That's not by any means to say that they're of no significance at all, nor that they shouldn't be included on Wikipedia somewhere, but I would argue that (based on the evidence produced so far) they likely fall below a reasonable threshold for inclusion in an overview article on the entire war.

My next point would be that - regardless of whether it belongs in this particular article or not - the treatment given in the proposed edit was far too detailed for this already overly-long article. It rivalled in length the section on the recapture of South Georgia and was longer than the section on the Battle of Goose Green. It was several times longer than the section on the battle at which these events are alleged to have taken place. This is pretty clearly undue prominence IMO: even if these allegations belong in the article, they merit a sentence or two at most.

My final point is that it is not neutral to include accusations by one side without including accusations by the other. I would also suggest it non-neutral to suggest that war crimes were common without evidence to back up - and this would be suggested by a section that gives undue prominence to the claims. Pfainuk talk 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My central point above was the conclusion, the last sentence. All other things I said were only a preface and trivial. I reiterate my central point as it is heretofore unaddressed: It would further consensus to include, in this talk page discussion, the British rebuttals to the accusations. Anarchangel (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps...
NecessaryEvil, you mistake my reason for removing the sentence in Public Relations starting "Perhaps...". I did not remove it because it was unsourced, I removed it because it was speculation. If the source says "Perhaps..." then that is the source speculating, and that does not belong in an encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Information from sources must be rewritten in order to avoid violation of copyright. I don't recall that Lawrence Freedman started his sentence with a "perhaps" but his wording couldn't be used. That's how the "perhaps" entered Wikipedia.
 * Speculation is permitted, as long as they are from reliable sources. Wikipedia is full of NASA speculations i.e. there might be water on Mars, Io's vulcanism may be triggered by tidal waves… The function of "perhaps" is to make readers vigilant, opposite to "The inquiry WAS half-hearted…
 * Originally the sentence was wordsmithed so there is no reason why you cannot do it now. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NASA's views rarely amount to speculation - they are usually well-informed scientific consensus. They are also clearly a leading authority on wate on Mars, to follow your example. We also do (or at least should) state explicitly that it is NASA making this speculation.
 * What we have here is unsupported speculation by an unnamed person of uncertain credentials. The absolute least we should do is attribute this speculation, and establish whether it is a significant viewpoint. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked at the reference for the para, it is cited to Lawrence Freedman in the British official history. How are those credentials uncertain?  David Underdown (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then let's say "Official historian Freedman speculates that..." DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since he will have talked to every senior officer and politician invovled, it's a bit more than speculation. We really need to look at his orignal wording, and decide if we're better off with a short verbatim quote, or think of some other paraphrase, but based on actually looking at the original again.  David Underdown (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned that the reference doesn't cite a work (though it's presumably the official history) or more importantly a page number. That's going to make it hard to track down. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, I'd missed the lack of page number, though I should think this is the sort of discussion it would eb easy enough to track from the index. David Underdown (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Revision history of Falklands War is a nightmare. "Revision as of 2007-06-12T17:56:33" . I read [Freedman, Sir Lawrence. Official History of the Falklands Campaign: Vols 1 & 2. Frank Cass, 2005. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7 and ISBN 0-7146-5207-5] as I wrote "Perhaps the inquiry was half-hearted, since Vietnam War style television pictures of bleeding, weeping soldiers were negative for the MoD." That was in no way his words, but I had to use some other words. However the meaning was his. 2007-06-12T19:50:14 SheffieldSteel improved the text to "Perhaps the enquiry was half-hearted; since the Vietnam War television pictures of casualties and traumatised soldiers were recognised as having negative propaganda value. ". Pure wordsmithing. It was the library's books, but try to ask User:Ryan4314 - according to his user page he might have them. Maybe "Newspaper Publishers' Association" or "Prince Andrew" in the index will lead to the pages, I think it was in volume two. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vol.2 p.37, however, the text in Freedman doesn't support this edit. Quite the converse in fact.  Freedman makes the comment that the technology simply wasn't up to sending TV imagery, so it had to go via Ascension.  He makes the point that TV producers suspected it was convenient for the MoD but it was a technology limit.  I have to say that following Freedman as a source that statement is not sustainable.  Justin talk 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Page 36 in volume 2 of Lawrence Freedman's Official History of …:

…to send pictures from a ship back to Britain using the American Defence [sic] Satellite Communications Systems (DSCS) satellite on which the RN had leased channels, but there were two problems with this. The RN channels were standard military audio ones, but TV pictures required a bandwidth 1000 times greater; and no higher-capacity channels could be made available.
 * and

The broadcasters suspected that if the military had not been so reluctant to have television pictures of the fighting, on the grounds that images of blood and gore might sap the nation’s will and distress the families of those who did the fighting, they might have pushed harder. There is no direct evidence for this but the consequential media frustration is not hard to understand. Video film had to be sent to Ascension Island…
 * As you can see there is basis for "perhaps the enquiry was half-hearted; since television pictures of casualties and traumatised soldiers were negative for the MoD." (the Vietnam War was my idea!) However if you are familiar with electronics from the eighties, like Justin, you will find this interesting:

For pictures to pass through the narrow military channel they would have to be sliced, but this would take 20 minutes to pass a single picture and would require the Americans to tilt their communications DSCS satellite, or a wider channel would need to be provided. At most poor-quality black and white pictures could be transmitted via this route. Informal approaches to the US resulted in a negative response: with their load the satellites could be put at risk by the manoeuvre.


 * I believe that the sentence should be something like: "TV producers suspected that the enquiry was half-hearted; since the Vietnam War television pictures of casualties and traumatised soldiers were recognised as having negative propaganda value. However the technology only allowed uploading a single frame per 20 minutes - and only if the satellites were allocated 100 % to television transmissions."
 * Television transmission via satellites is common business, at least since the Olympic Games in Munich 1972, so readers might wonder why it didn't happen in 1982.
 * Regarding my NASA argument; NASA often publish images obtained by their space probes with a describing text. Since it is done instantly, there is no time for "well-informed scientific consensus". It is NASA speculations (not in a negative meaning) but sourced speculations for Wikipedia. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in the '80s you'd have needed a couple of ISO containers to house the generator, satellite dish, satellite tracking equipment, transmission equipment, not to mention all the video editing kit. Nowadays you'd need a suitcase.  Neither were there the satellites available commercially that could be dedicated to moving that sort of imagery.  Back in 1982, the capability didn't exist to report a war in real time.  You could source all of that but it kind of runs into OR territory to explain it all.  Justin talk 11:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To add to the comments by Justin, there is also an issue with the footprint of the various configured channels on the spacecraft. Given that the SAI are on the edge of the wideband then data rates were extremely low, and the bandwidth was heavily contended with operational traffic, which should always be the priority.
 * Add to that the fact that the DSCS spacecraft were also supporting US operations in a number of places and tilting would have depleted support to these then one can reasonably understand why the owners would not have gone out of their way.
 * In any case, this isn't about the use of perhaps, it's about how to represent an opinion reported by another author. Speculating on spacecraft operations is wholly inappropriate.
 * ALR (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The five days' silence is people's "I rest my case" signal. The consensus seems to be: DJ Clayworth doesn't like the P-word, Justin has explained the technical realities anno 1982 and David Underdown has explained the notability of Lawrence Freedman. Following the high-quality reference the sentence: "TV producers suspected that the enquiry was half-hearted; since the Vietnam War television pictures of casualties and traumatised soldiers were recognised as having negative propaganda value. However the technology only allowed uploading a single frame per 20 minutes - and only if the military satellites were allocated 100 % to television transmissions." is satisfying the involved users. The lines are relevant since readers would wonder why there wasn't any satellite TV. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal
Hopefully, at 136 Kb, everyone can agree that the article badly needs to be split according to WP:SPLIT "60 KB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time). 100 KB: Almost certainly should be divided".

The key to splitting is that the parts split off be easily summarized in the parent article, and that they are good subjects for articles themselves. The originator of the Proposal section above is choosing, it seems to me, I may be wrong, details that that editor feels are less important to the article, but that is the very reason that they would make poor articles in themselves. I have a different proposal. Per the section 'The fall of Stanley', which has 5 main articles on the battles that took place, we could split off the 'Sinking of the Belgrano', 'Sinking of the Sheffield', and 'Black Buck raids' sections into their own articles, leaving short summaries and the Main Article link. Alternatively, or in conjunction, I propose a Military operations of the Falklands War article, as the details of materiel and logistics are complicated and therefore lengthy, and although I am fully aware that it is almost ludicrous to call the the civilian actions relating to the war, the War, nonetheless the military operations can be easily distinguished as such, where the remainder cannot. Or if it can, then of course I am open to suggestions, but good luck with trying to include politics and medical treatment, military strategy and the rest, all under one name. Anarchangel (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the articles you mention already exist or the detail exists as part of an individual article. The suggestion has some merit, though given the article is about the war moving military operations to a second article may seem a little strange. How it is to be done needs some thought.
 * I support the idea of slimming it down nontheless. Justin talk 11:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal is far better than mine. I think that Military analysis could be a good candidate: it is chronologically separated from the war and conceptually different to the "tale" of the war.

But we jeopardize to convert "Falklands War" in "Timetable of the Falklands War" if we summarize too hard or worse, to lose the thread of the "tale". In the case of 'Sinking of the Belgrano' you should keep in the main article: the date, the casualties, the main political consequence (point of no return of the war). What about the difference between the old ship and the nuclear submarine?, and the "Gotcha"-headline? would you let it?. --Keysanger (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One of my long term projects is a timeline article. I believe it would be possible to separate the two and not lose the narrative.  Another suggestion borrowed from es.wikipedia, is to split the post-conflict analysis into a separate article "Consequences of the Falklands War".  Justin talk 14:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

?? --Keysanger (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what are you asking? I support your bold edit by the way. Justin talk 15:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That was my question. But, it is annoying that now the 'ARA Alferez Sobral incident'-paragraph is as length as the 'Sinking of the Belgrano'-paragraph. It looks like an undue weight. What can we do? --Keysanger (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the trim down, you'll find the appropriate spin-off articles probably already exist. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Keysanger. I don't believe that Public Relations belongs to Consequences of the Falklands War‎. PR is during the war and Consequences… is after the war. Nice job anyway. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved one (pre-war) sentence to the section "Lead-up to the conflict" in main article and the section PR to the end of the main article, I think that is the right place and added a "Lead too short" tag to "Consequences of the Falklands War". --Keysanger (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved the section "Name" to the page "Cultural impact". The "Name-War" isn't the actually war related in the main article. --Keysanger (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see your reasoning to a point, but I suspect that taking it out of this article will just lead to increased edit-warring over the lead. David Underdown (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Belgrano section, Sayerslle edits
Sayerselle, I know we'ev clashed before on the Thatcher article. There you complained about insufficient sources for describing Scargill's intentions, it seems to me that you are doing something similar here. You make a sattement that something as "arguable", a classic "weasel" word, but you give no indication of who is arguing such a thing, and that is the main reason your edit seems POV, though I take your point taht the bald statment about the lack of hope for talks could do with more support. Also, yes the Belgrano was outside the declared exclusion zone around the Flaklands, but I don't beleive taht it was ver stated that this was the only area in which offensive operations might take place - it was more to warn neutrals to stay clear of the are. David Underdown (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * on the Thatcher page that wasnt about 'insufficient sources' that was what I thought was a lie, an invention. This sentence looks POV to me. When you right 'it seems to me that you are doing something similar here' it makes me sound shady, which I don't like. Seeing as how the Peruvaian peace talks were pogressing I think the statement at least needs a ref. Justin quotes like Freedman is God 'The Official Version', discussion over, also adding a ref wouldn't add to the length of the article, what is justin on about ? Will we ever really know how much the War Cabinet knew of the progress of the peace talks? Sayerslle (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My intent was not to make you sound shady, just trying to point out that to me you didn't seem to be applying the same standard to your own edits here that you had demanded of others elswhere. I may of course be wrong.  So far Freedman represents the best knowledge we have of the British official position during the conflict.  Further papers will doubtless become available following the normal operation of the thirty-year rule (this period is likely to be shortened followingthe recent review), and now papers released under FOI.  If you're not aware of it, you may find the Cabinet Papers section of The National Archives' website interesting, so far coverage only extends to 1978 as these are the latest papers released under the thirty-year rule, but obviously this means it's only a few years until the papers relating to the Falklands should be released (unless the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee approves exemptions under the specific grounds allowed for under FOI). See http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/new-releases.htm David Underdown (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is documented on the Belgrano article, which includes the April 23 warning and the later acknowledgement by the Argentine Navy that the ship was engaged in an offensive military operation. Freedman in his 2005 Official History debunks the claims the decision was made to derail the Belaunde plan.  And as noted above the article is currently too long already to add additional material.  Further Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs.  You've been reverted 3 times already by two editors, quit it and take the issue to talk.  Justin talk 09:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, his last edit was merely to add a fact tag to the unreferenced assertion about the peace talks being opintless. I think that this is something that should justifiably be cited, and clarification given as to who thought they were pointless.  David Underdown (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for a knee jerk response, I should have checked further. My suggestion is to just remove that line, it adds nothing.  Justin talk 09:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah, just remove the line, seeing as how the Peruvian peace talks were making progress, and its just an unreferenced statement that has survived all your non POV editing. 'Quit it..' etc I'm sick of right wing bullies on wikipedia. Sayerslle (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologised for an error. Please refrain from personal attacks, you don't know anything about me.  You can join the long list of left/right wing "bullies" who've accused me of POV editing, as I annoy both I guess I can assume I'm hitting the neutral.  The line itself adds nothing.  Justin talk 10:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Over lunch I took a look at Signals of war: the Falklands conflict of 1982, Lawrence Freedman and Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse, Faber and Faber, 1990, ISBN 9780571141449; The fight for the "Malvinas" : the Argentine Forces in the Falklands War  Martin Middlebrook, Viking, 1989, ISBN 9780670821068; and The Royal Navy and the Falklands War, David Brown, Leo Cooper (publisher), 1987, ISBN 9780850520590.

Middlebrook on p 74 specifically says "the negotiations were failing" though since this relates to 30 April, that presumably refers to the previous American attempts, rather than the Peruvian proposals and elsehere he says that the diplomatic efforts are outsdie the scope of his book. Brown asserts that the sinking had nothing to do with the peace proposals, and certainly wasn't a deliberate attempt to derail them. Freedman and Gamba-Stonehouse (an Argentine military historian) pp. 280-287 describe the apparent progress made by the Peruvians as illusory, due to Belaunde misunderstanding British actions, and giving the Argentinians the impression that the British were more involved in teh process than they actually were, and also refute any direct connection between the sinking and the Peruvian proposals. David Underdown (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The seven point plan had been agreed between Haig, who was 'acting ' for the British, and Belaunde, acting for the Argentinians, the previous night, (in Britain, the early hours of the morning). Did the war cabinet meeting not have before it ' the latest from Francis in Washington'? Not a document, just 'the latest'...What do Freedman and Gamba-Stonehouse say Pym was doing in Wsahington then?..Were the British not interested in a settlement ...Even if you've found three historians who reject any connection between the proposals and the sinking, and I appreciate your trouble, I still don't see that that is the last, definitive word. The Peruvian prime minister felt peace hopes were sunk by the Belgrano sinking. It will be interesting to see the papers.  Sayerslle (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He had been in Washington to talk about US military aid now the Reagan administration had basically come down on the British side, and then to go to the UN to meet the Secretary-General - which seems to be where any hopes for peace were really expected to come form. Part of the problem is that Haig wasn't really (according to Freedman/Gamba-Stonehouse the other two books don't go into any detail as to what the Belaunde proposals actually comprised) acting for the British in any definite sense, and Pym himself had no mandate to approve any ceasefire without further contact with London.  Following the initial British air raids on Stanley, the lack of further concrete British action at that stage convinced Belaunde and the Argentinians that the British were observing a tacit ceasefire - though this seems to have basically been wishful thinking on his part.  Further, the Argentinians believed they had downed as many as four harriers and a helicpter during these initial raids, and so thought they were negotiating from a stronger position than was in fact the case.  Pym wasn't in Washington for substantive peace talks, there hadn't been any indication before he set off for the US that any new proposals were going to be on the table, even when the British Ambassador to Peru spoke to their foreign minister early on 1 May no indication was really given on the new proposals.  What was put to him in a meeting with Haig seemed little different from the previous US proposals (on which they were based), but very vague and with little definite content, and at this stage there was nothing in them that made him think he urgently needed to discuss them with London.After a morning meeting with Haig, he had lunch with him a bit later, but the Peruvian proposal was apparently not really discussed then.  Pym then returned to the British embassy and then headed to the airport for his flight to NY.  Haig does seem to ahve tried to contact Pym at the airport, but the message was passed via the British ambassador, and seems to have lost some of its urgency along the way.  Once Pym was in the air, and then in discussions with the UN Secretary-General (and hard though it is to remeber, we're talking pre-mobile phones and Blackberrys of course) Haig couldn't reach him.  The first report to London of any new proposal seems to have been from the ambassador in Peru, which didn't come through until after Belgrano was sunk.


 * Also bear in mind that the only reason the Argentinians hadn't launched a major strike on the British carriers on 1 May was that the winds were unusually light so their Skyhawks had been unable to take off from tehir carrier, ARA 25 de Mayo, with the combined total weight of bombs and fuel that was required, but for this it would have been the Argentinians that escalated matters first. One thing in the sources that doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the articles here is that just to the north of Belgrano, on the actual edge of the TEZ lay an area of much shallower water, if the Belgrano and her escorts entered this, Conqueror might well have lost them, and by the time contact was re-established they could well have been in position to attack the main British task force (according to Brown).


 * I think I've summarised Freedman and Gamba-Stonehouse fairly, but unfortunately I can't look at the book and write this at the same time, so it's possible I have erred. David Underdown (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the book, your synopsis is indeed accurate. Its also worth noting, you have skirted the issue, that the Argentines later admitted that the Belgrano was part of the much feared pincer move on the Task Force.  The British had been unable to locate the aircraft carrier after missing their chance in April.  At the time of the sinking the Belgrano was in a holding position, ready to dash across the Burnwood Bank.  Also in 2005 it was revealed that the British broke the Argentine naval code early in the war and whilst they knew an attack was in progress they didn't know the positions of the Argentine fleet.  Justin talk 21:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well my book says, where yours says, 'what was put to him seemed little different', - "In the Belaunde proposals, unlike those of both Haig and the OAS, an immediate Argentine withdrawal was matched by the temporary removal of British administration from Port Stanley..", that Haig, Belaunde and Galtieri had reached agreement on a 7 point plan and that Pym must have conveyed this to Chequers. When you say it was wishful thinking that made Belaunde and the Argentinians believe there was a tacit ceasefire Pym said on arriving in Washington, that the attacks on the Falklands that day had been intended to concentrate the Argentines minds on a peaceful settlement . He added "No further military action is envisaged at the moment, except to keep the exclusion zone secure." Times 2 May 1982. When you say what wa proposed was 'very vague', I don't know about that, needing modification maybe ,   and, 'the Peruvian proposal was apparently not really discussed then' , who says ?, Anyway, I just believe a peace treaty would have sunk Thatcher, and that explains a lot.Sayerslle (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Haig was not acting for the British any more than Belaunde was acting for Argentina. Yes, the British were interested in a settlement, it was Perez de Cuellar who expressed his amazement at just how much the British were prepared to compromise to avoid war.  It was Argentina that rejected every proposal, in fact the British accepted the Belaunde proposal on May 4.  It was also the Argentine Government that launched a military offensive attempting to strike the British task force; the very mission that the Belgrano was part of.  So whilst the British may not have contemplated further military action, the Argentines certainly were.  What do you expect the British to do, wait till their ships were attacked?
 * There is no connection between the two; you've completely ignored anything contradictory in the evidence documented by those historians. You demonstrate that your own beliefs are clouding your judgement with the phrase "I just believe" and that is original research and inappropriate for wikipedia.
 * Whether a peace treaty would have sunk Thatcher is a moot point, in fact its very arguable whether it would. A peace deal and Thatcher acting as a World Stateman would have done her re-election chances just as much good.  What is often forgotten is just how risky a military endeavour the Falklands War was; most said it couldn't be done.  My personal opinion is that I don't see how any self-interested politician would opt for a risky war with a real risk of a humiliating defeat as opposed to solving the problem with a peace settlement.  That doesn't make sense.  So I really don't by all the conspiracy theories promoted by Thatcher's opponents, neither before you resort to personal abuse am I a fan of Margaret Thatcher who was probably one of the worst Prime Ministers we've ever had, probably only Tony B Liar is comparable.  Justin talk 15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Which book Sayerslle, Ponting perhaps? That Times quote (which incidentally didn't actually appear in print until the 3rd, judging by their archives, though of course his statement could have been conveyed to the Argentinians by diplomatic channels as well) may have been one of the other factors at work on Belaunde and Galtieri in beleiving in a tacit ceasefire, I can't remember off hand if that statement was mentioned, but of course the British government case has always been that the sinking of Belgrano was to keep the exclusion zone secure.  Yes it happened outside, but she could have turned into the zone at any time (and has been pointed out, Argentinian sources have since admitted that this was actually the ultimate plan).  "Who says?" Freedman and Gamba-Stonehouse, I admit I didn't check to see what sources they themselves cite for this part of the book. And yes, wile Galtieri had pretty much agreed with the Belaunde proposals, he had not chance to put them before the rest of the junta, that was due to happen at a meeting later in the day, and in the end that same meeting also received the news of the sinking.  Would a negotiated end really been so bad for Thatcher?  Turfing the Argentinians back off the Falklands with barely a shot fired, and with no British casualties could probably have been spun pretty well.  Of course, when it comes to Wikipedia articles our own individual opinions don't matter, only what we can cite to reliable sources.  However, we seem to be drfiting away from what's really the remit of this page, discussing article improvements, and certainly isn't the place to try to change each other's personal beliefs.  David Underdown (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'There was no hope that additional diplomacy would lead anywhere.' This POV, unreferenced statement lived under your nonPOV editing, and now is shoved off to a lesser read page and  is still there. You write, correctly I think 'Galtieri had pretty much agreed with the Belaunde proposals' ,  probably well aware they faced humiliating defeat, Justin writes 'It was Argentina that rejected every proposal..' Justin thinks 'GOTCHA -THATCHER stuns Argies by doing the unexpected, and accepts compromise Belaunde/Haig peace plan' would have pleased the  Conservative Press and Party, and  seen her accepted as great Stateswoman. What an absurd fantasy. ' The Conservative Press and right wing of the Party had been let off the leash. only war and conquest would have satisfied them. Anyway, its all been shovelled off the page  by you non POV , unbiased  editors. And yes, while Galtieri had pretty much agreed with the Belaunde proposals, he had not the chance to put them before the rest of the junta that was due to happen at a meeting later in the day, and in the end that same meeting also received the news of the sinking.  That is the whole point. Sayerslle (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Argentinians beleived they had destroyed four harriers and one helicopter on 1 May. Galtieri didn't really believe the UK would go through with taking back the islands by force.  As Justin says, the miltary action was an incredible gamble, 8000 miles from home with the attacking force outnumbered three-to-one (when the military rule-of-thumb is that the attackers should ahve a 3-to-1 advantage in order to stand a reasonable chance) against a well-equipped enemy (some of that equipment fairly recently sold to them by the UK - some of the Argentinian ships were of exactly the same class as those sent by the British) operating on far shorter supply lines.  The Argentinians were planning their own offensive actions, as has been confirmed by Argentinian sources.  The statement you're so het-up about is true up to apoint, had it been clarified tht it was referring to previous US-led efforts.  Perhaps some mention should have been made that Belaunde had tabled some frutehr proposals.  They were largely simplified versions of the earlier proposals, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence (you still haven't given any information on the source you're using by the way which makes this conversation rather difficult) that London knew anything about them before the rules of engagement were changed to permit the attack on Belgrano.  Incidentally, Brown makes it clear that those aboard Conqueror didn't expect to sink her, but it so happened taht they actually managed to score two hits from three torpedoes (only one was teh expectation), and it so happened that those struck in such a way that they missed the armoured belt designed to give protection against torpedoes.  Lack of preparation for damage control also played a big part in the fact she was actually lost.


 * We can never know what would ahve happened if negotiations had continued - would Thatcher have stood for a situation where adminstration of the Islands was temporarily hadned over to a third party, perhaps not. But to go in the articles we need authoritative sources that have considered the ssue. David Underdown (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well both of the editors you're abusing with personal attacks actually agree with removing that POV statement. Do you have a point that will assist in improving the article, or do you just see this as an opportunity to be an angry young man with your fist in the air and head in the sand?  And it is also a verifiable fact that whilst the British engaged in the peace process, made concessions and pursued a twin strategy of diplomacy and military action.  Argentina did not.  If you have a suggestion to improve the article in line with the way Wikipedia works, please make it.  Otherwise please stop wasting people's time if your only intention is to lecture.  Justin talk 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - Is it certainly known how much the war cabinet knew of the progress of the Peruvian peace talks ? No document to consider, just how things were going. ' Galtieri phoned Belaunde in the early morning. The high command was almost unanimous in approving the terms, though there were a number of small points to be negotiated. Throughout that morning, Belaunde negotiated these points in calls to Washington and to Buenos Aires. In Washington, General Haig was in close touch with Pym, probably in the same room most of the time, certainly the two men had lunch together.' New Statesman, May 1983. And please ignore this question, before abusing me with 'stop wasting peoples time' as I understand 'the way Wikipedia works' this is all voluntary. Sayerslle (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is known has been addressed, anything else is WP:OR territory and not suitable for wikipedia. And the same Junta with sons and nephews on the Belgrano, were the same junta that ordered it on a mission to attack the British task force, the same attack that was in progress when the Belgrano was sunk and allegedly the same Junta that was about to allegedly throw in the towel, whilst at no point did that self-same Junta issue a recall order.  The same Junta that launched an unprovoked attack and invaded in the first place and had to that point rebuffed all peace attempts.  Belgrano was just an excuse, if they were serious about peace they would have still negotiated.  The British were still prepared to call a halt even after the sinking of the Sheffield.  Justin talk 13:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Going back to Freeman and Gamba-Stonehouse (Chapter 17), waht was said between Haig and Pym seems largely to be based on the account of Sir Nicholas Henderson, the British Ambassador to the US, who was also present during the discussions, and also Pym's statements to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee when they enquired into the events of 1-2 May, and a Panorama programme about Belgrano et al. Freeman and Gamba-Stonehouse in their notes characterise the New Statesman report to which you refer as a "full but not wholly accurate account" of the Peruvian initiative.  Also accoridng to Freeman and Stonehouse-Gamba, the air force member fo the Junta later claimed that even after Belgrano he voted in favour of pursuing the initiative.  They also state that Pym seems to have thought that the British Ambassador in Lima was updating London on the proposals, and that Pym saw nothing sufficiently new in them to make him urgently contact London directly himself. David Underdown (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't think a sentence like 'It is not absolutely clear how much the war cabinet knew of the progress of the Peruvian peace talks.' is OR, its just letting the subject breathe, I find justins 'my country right or wrong' editing claustrophobic - Britain must have 'invaded' the islands too some time, they're bloody miles away,and the same cabinet that he defends, armed the junta, 'some of the equipment recently acquired from the UK', the same cabinet  had cut off assistance for political refugees from Argentina, they liked the Chile /Argentina tyrranies..Cecil Parkinson in 1981 in Buenos Aires to boost the junta said its economic policy was an example to the British govt. Anyway, I'll  be interested to read the papers in 2012. Did the British ambassador  in Lima keep them updated - its strange considering Pym was with Haig at that time, if he saw nothing new in them that isnt what the New Statesman says about them.  Anyway, thats me finished. Sayerslle (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The islands were in fact uninhabited when Britain settled them and I'm defending no one. Merely pointing out you are excusing the actions of a military dictatorship that was responsible for starting the war.  It was a Labour Government by the way that sold the Type 42 and other British military equipment to Argentina.  Governments of all flavours were keen to sell out the Falkland Islanders for better relations with Argentina.  I'm nothing like you paint me and really if you can only think of people who disagree with in terms of unflattering political stereotypes that is merely a sad reflection upon your own narrow-mindedness.  Justin talk 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern was over a terrible, tendentious sentence that survived your scrupulous editing and has now gone thank goodness. How is that excusing the actions of a military dictatorship? Rhetorical question, Ive finished arguing. Last example though, pot, kettle black... 'do you just see this this as an opportunity to be an angry young man with your fist in the air and head in the sand' 'really if you can only think of people who disagree with you in terms of unflattering political stereotypes that is merely a sad reflection upon your own narrow mindedness.'  Your words, o.k. Sayerslle (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And which people agreed could be removed and your response was, well, personal abuse; which you continue. No need for any argument whatsoever.  This is after all a co-operative project, yes my words, obviously irony isn't your strong point.  You go careful now.  Justin talk 21:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Irony or whatever, it seems theres a rule for you - you can be as abusive as you like, and theres another rule for me. You go careful too. Whatever that means,irony, sarcasm, threat, ..who can tell. You go careful now. ??Sayerslle (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cementeries
I think that a short description of the cementeries in the islands is missing in the article. Or should be in other article? --Keysanger (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/roh.html


 * Probably belongs in this article; there are two in the islands. The cemetery at Goose Green is the Argentine cemetery, where the memorial is due to be inaugurated this October.  The British cemetery is at San Carlos.  Unfortunately even the dead are a political issue, the Argentine Government refused the repatriation of the Argentine dead.  Then until recently the inauguration has been postponed following political grand standing over flights.  Justin talk 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Narwal
The article lacks completely the sinking of the "Narwal". See http://www.malvinense.com.ar/smalvi/0109/1084.html --Keysanger (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the best choice of sources, it lacks notability for this overview article. Argentine Naval Forces in the Falklands War seems the appropriate place.  Justin talk 19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)