Talk:Operation Soberanía

Article
I think a background section is needed to clarify the cause of this ( personally I think was just a bunch of lunatics pushing for a fratricide war ) but to reduce the origin of this to just the beagle islands is frankly false. At the time, there was a perceived idea (among argentines) that chile was always looking for gain any possible meter of patagonia, we can mention countless "incidents" between gendarmes and carabineros along the century involving moving border landmarks ("hitos") --Jor70 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right the Beagle conflict is only part of the background not the whole. The treaty of 1881, the Arbitration of 1902 (article needs to be created), the Southern Patagonian Icefield, the bioceanic geopolitic theory and the Encuentro-Alto Palena dispute (article needed) are all parts of the background. In my opinion the article about the 1881 treaty is one of the article that meeds most attentions as it gives the background to all later disputes. Dentren  |  Ta lk  18:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a missed background common to the 7 articles of the serie "Beagle conflict" and should not repeated 7x. Furthermore somewhere must be a limit between "Beagle conflict#(missed section)" and "Argentina–Chile relations". The former is included in the latter but both are different oriented.

I tried to illustrate the missed background in the section Papal mediation in the Beagle conflict, but I agree that this section could be expanded and put in the main article.

--Keysanger (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of Battle
Already has the expand template, we need to make it visible so others editors may help, specially chileans. The things I added are well know and could be easily find in their respective articles. I restore it --Jor70 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * obviously, it isn't complete and I don't know YOUR source of information.
 * I know that there is a lot of problems with the figures because to have X submarines doesn't mean to operate X submarines. Read Falkland war about the Argentine carrier or submarines or British Helicopter (they had enough but not there) So, to say Chile had Y troops doesn't mean Chile had Y men against Argentina. Some one weren't there (Peru-Bolivia). I think such a table is superfluous because we already have the military expenditures of both countries. --Keysanger 22:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not true, in 1982 the submarines and the carriers were operational, the thing they discovered to late that torpedoes didnt work and there was 0 wind just the day the carrier need to launch their aircraft is another (sad) story. Anyway Im trying to show to equipment at disposal not matter their circumstantial location. Also, I only add the weapons systems that are obviously confirmed, click on every article and you see the story there. Regarding the chilean aircraft (F-5,Hunter,A-37) I prefer to leave that to a chilean but I could them too if you wish --Jor70 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish. And for every data. --Keysanger 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability
Please, take a look in WP:Verifiability. Probably you know what you write but I don't know it and want to know it. It will be very easy for you to deliver the sources as you say that it is well known. Sorry, we need a little bit more time to write a better article:


 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. (Bold by Wikipedia!)

By the way, do you think it is actually needed that table?. I think the given military expenditures are enough.As you can see there is a lot of figures to show, but the article doesn't become better with such contradictory and uncertain numbers --Keysanger 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

are that references?


 * 46 ^ |Both navies have their WWII era ships upgraded with Exocet
 * 47 ^ D-1 Hercules
 * 48 ^ D-20 ARA Almirante Brown,D-22 ARA Rosales,D-23 ARA Domecq Garcia,D-24 ARA Storni
 * 49 ^ D-25 ARA Segui, D-26 ARA Bouchard, D-29 ARA Piedra Buena
 * 50 ^ D-27 ARA Cdo Py
 * 51 ^ ex USS Spot (SS-413), USS Springer (SS-414) was already scrapped

--Keysanger 20:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just taken a look at this: Keysanger is correct that the Order of Battle section is not currently referenced, so an "unreferenced" tag is appropriate. It contains footnotes, but not references.  Though that does not, of course, excuse the minor edit war going on. Pfainuk talk 20:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I would say that if you're disputing a fact, the correct procedure would be to add a tag and to discuss it in the talk page.  Really edit warring is not the way to go forward. May I tactfully suggest that in co-operation you work up and order of battle in the talk page rather that edit warring over it.  Justin talk 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. --Keysanger 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The military imbalance
The section doesnt seem right it talks about a lot of events after 1978 which can not really be relevant to the Operation. An aftermath section is waranted for some of subsequent events but most of this does not seem relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * first sentence : unfortunately that's true.
 * second sentence : the Operation Rosario and Balza's opinion are subsequent events directly associated with the theme of the article --Keysanger 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory statement?
Hi, I just found confusing the following patagraph as is unclear who is actually quoted:

After the invasion of the Falklands on 2 April 1982, the Argentine junta planned the military occupation of the disputed islands in the Beagle channel, as stated by Brigadier Basilio Lami Dozo, chief of the Argentine Air Force during the Falklands war, in an interview with the Argentine magazine Perfil: L.F. Galtieri: "[Chileans] have to know that what we are doing now, because they will be the next in turn".[50]

As both Lami Dozo and Galtieri are mentioned but is unclear who was really interviewed by "Perfil" magazine. And I can't access the referenced issue of thsi magazine to clarify. Can anyone please help? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DPdH, Dozo was interviewed and he repeated a statement of Galtieri. The page is now in archive.org:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20091125142325/http://www.diarioperfil.com.ar/edimp/0420/articulo.php?art=18309&ed=0420
 * How would you say that?. -- Keysanger (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

reverted edit
Editor KeySanger my edit without comment. The changes I made were: I believe that my edits were correct and that the reversion was inappropriate.
 * 1) delete author-separator, author-name-separator, separator because these parameters have been deprecated and no longer perform the functions for which they were originally conceived.
 * 2) delete chapter because that parameter is not supported by when newspaper has an assigned value.
 * 3) delete redundant template from §External links that was already used in §References.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You deleted http://www.clarin.com/suplementos/zona/1998/12/20/i-00401e.htm -- Keysanger (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sort of. If you look, the article (in its current state) uses that url five times; three times as plain external wikilinks (all of which are references that can and probably should be consolidated), once in a  template at Operation_Soberanía, and once as an exact copy of that  template in §External links.  I removed this latter per WP:ELDUP.


 * I still believe that my edits were correct and that the reversion was inappropriate.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I put the source in bibliography, now is there only one source and several references to the source. I think it is better than the old 5 sources. -- Keysanger (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the templates so that the links work and removed the deprecated parameters from the Amato citation template.  The template should probably be moved to the top of the bibliography so that it is in alphabetical order.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Operation Soberanía. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.seprin.com/menu/notas6620.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.histarmar.com.ar/InfHistorica-5/preludios.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.diarioelcentro.cl/articulos_sc.php?fecha=01-11-2004&semana=43-2004
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529153631/http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/words/11.pdf to http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/words/11.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clarin.com/suplementos/zona/1998/12/20/i-00401e.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014153628/http://www.emol.com/especiales/tratado_chileargentina/guerra.htm to http://www.emol.com/especiales/tratado_chileargentina/guerra.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.uvm.cl/sitio_iri/monografias2005/RECIPROCIDAD%20EN%20LAS%20RELACIONES%20CHILE%20ARGENTINA%20-%20Andr%E9s%20Oelckers.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)