Talk:Skirmish at Top Malo House

Opening heading
Is it really necessary to litter this article with Fact after nearly every sentence? Stephenjh 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What's slightly more disturbing is the infiltration of argentinians "facts" - reduction of numbers killed, introduction of nonsensical information. the whole thing could do with rolling back before the Argentinian made their changes, and littered the place with citation needed statements. Any decent counter-arguments? I wouldn't mind, but no attempt has been made to do these corrections in English. I hate to think what the spanish wiki version is like - probably some parallel universe where the Argentinians won :-)--R1pp3r 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: According to Argentine accounts only two 602 commandos were killed during the battle (Lieutenant Ernesto Espinoza and Sergeant Mateo Sbert) as well as 6 wounded. I believe that Argentine sources are more reliable than British sources, afterall it is they who suffered them. Moreover, the victors are often known inflate the enemy's casualties. Ex. Battle of Goose Green (the British estimated 250 dead Argentines when only 400-500 had truly engaged them in combat) and the firefight at Fanning Head (The British estimated 12 Argentine dead out of 20; according to Argentine reports 17 of the defenders made it back safely.)

I'm well aware that the victors often inflate their accounts, and not only in this campaign. Also, the losers need to make themselves look good in hindsight. With that much Argentinian pride at stake, I'd like to see sources for these numbers, even if the source is in Spanish. "I was there" isn't good enough. Also, the article sorely needs re-doing in English, which I see hasn't been challenged. R1pp3r 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I have seen the Battle of Top Malo house being discussed on a website and as many of the points are incorrect I would like to add some comments. The information that Top Malo was occupied by Argentineans was passed back by Lt Fraser Haddows patrol not Sgt Stones(the patrol the Hueys nearly landed on in the mist). Stone returned the day before the assault and reported he had seen a lot of helo activity in the area. As as been mentioned previously a Harrier strike was asked for but none were available. The operation to clear Top Malo house was put together at the last minute with very limited information as to numbers/weapons and equipment at Top Malo. Lt Haddows team had seen the Argentinians land at Top Malo at extreme long range through a Swift scope(long range telescope). In fact a number of the buildings that the MAWC assault teams planned to clear turned out to be nothing more than chicken coops. Some "armchair generals" have critisized the use of the MAWC at Top Malo as a potential waist of valuable assets. Also in normal military operations the attacking force should have a 3 to 1 majority. This is in an ideal world, but the Falklands were far from it. The MAWC were the only troops available so it was a case of get on with it. The fact that possible Argentinian Special Forces were at Top Malo was regarded as an extreme threat to the Brigade and had to be dealt with. The group that attacked Top Malo was cobbled together from patrols due to relieve others on the ground and patrols that had just come in. It consisted of three 4 man assault teams and a 5 man fire support group. The MAWC was very lightly equipped with a mixture of M16 and L1A1 SLR rifles,an L42 sniper rifle, M79 Grenade launchers, L2 grenades and a handful of 66mm LAW. The Seaking that was supposed to drop them off just before first light was hours late so the MAWC was dropped off in broad daylight. The pilot that dropped them off flew extemely low literaly feet off the deck. The team shook out in to formation and followed dead ground to Top Malo house. The teams spread out and watched the house undetected for a good 10mins before the OC Capt Boswell gave the order to attack. As the MAWC had seen no movement or sentries they initially thought the place was empty. Boswell fired the green mini flare but no one could see it against the dark background so he fired a red one to start the assault. The assault started by the cover group firing 66 LAW and M79 rounds. The three asault teams moved forward with the centre team firing two 66 LAW and then the full assault began. Three members of the MAWC were wounded in the attack .The assault didn't last long, the right hand team could see the Argentinians exiting the house from the side and moving into a gully. With M79 rounds and high velocity fire dropping around them most began to surrender with a few continuing to put up resistance. This died out after more M79 rounds were fired.

After the assault the MAWC began to disarm the argentinians and deal with their wounded and call for the HELO pick up that was supposed to be on call. Once again it was over an hour late which was worrying for the casualties from both sides and also the MAWC didn't know if there were more Argentinian patrols in the area. The Argentinians thought the force that attacked them was a lot bigger and mistook the LAW's and M79 rounds for Mortars (which a larger formation would normally have). The Argintinians lost two men and had 5 or 6 wounded. They were all taken to Ajax bay either for treatment or debriefing.

The MAWC were all highly trained professional soldiers with years of experience of working and living in harsh environements. Some commentators have made the mistake of thinking that because some of the men were on their ML2 course they were inexperienced recruits. Not so. It amazed the MAWC that Special Forces had occupied an isolated farm house in bare open country side and had no sentries or patrols out. The place was so obvious, when assaulting the place it was like attacking over a golf course. There wasnt any snow on the deck either(or if it was it was minimal). The MAWC found a sheep strung up ready for the pot in one of the sheds. The Argintinians forgot or never put into practice lot of basic infantry skills that day. Regards cliffheadroller1

By despising the Argentine version, the article contradicts itself
The composition of the Argentinian party was 12 men, according to one of the sources cited (Losito). So is hard to understand why the infobox adds 6 other men to the Argentinian party. It's also absurd to suppose that two published and reliable sources like Ruiz Moreno and Losito (the latter himself a protagonist of the battle) only identify two fatalities. I guess they have no interest in concealing three deaths, specially Losito, since the fallen were his colleagues and very close to him, and 24 years have passed between his book and the war. Had the Argentine's roll of honor been understated, it would be to taunt the families of the missing dead. DagosNavy 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually rather than despising the Argentine version, I'd done some research and found Argentine material that also corroborated it. One is in the version I self-reverted.  The reason for the self-revert was when I checked the official British history  it corroborates your version.  The edit was based upon the sources quoted, they appear to be wrong, but then if you look on the web most appear to be so - including Argentine sites.  It was an edit made in good faith and you really should have assumed so.  Justin talk 23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's OK. Best regards.

DagosNavy 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

erroneously
A number of accounts have been written of the battle and many, both Argentine and British, erroneously put the number of Argentine dead at five.

There is an assumption that this is the correct version and all the rest are wrong. This is a point of view, but if it is to be stated then it should not be done in the passive narrative voice of the article but attributed to the most reliable source available. Eg "The Argentinian/British regimental history" states that Argentinian lost two KIA. Some other accosts ...".

For the moment I am removing the word "erroneously" as it carries a bias and as such breaks WP:NPOV -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No it is not, the British and Argentine accounts now tally, as reported in the Official History, one account that was incorrect was widely reported, it has been repeatedly corrected. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See what I have written in the article. If you know which report was in "error" then give the name of the report and add that the later official histories state that ... Readers can then draw their own conclusions, we do not have to say which is an error unless there is a source that explicitly says that one is in error. In cases like this it is usually better to place source comparisons and differences in footnotes, unless the differences have a notable POV difference which needs to be present in the text of the article, and this one does not. -- PBS (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is nothing to do with POV issues, that is frankly a red herring, the reports are in error, in some cases only corrected when the official histories were written. We should not knowingly repeat information we know to be erroneous. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ROA
The sentence "14 ROA members..." is highly dubious as those teams havent such number of members, in fact many of their officers were pucara pilots which no more airplanes to fly. The number of POW, if true, might include some regular army troops on it. --Jor70 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the sources say, as I understand it was a patrol in strength so the numbers seem about right to me. Justin talk 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Skirmish, not "battle"
I think the word "battle" is something of an overstatement. I'll suggest that the article's name should be changed to "Skirmish at Top Malo House" cf. Skirmish at Many Branch Point. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree Given the precadence on the other article, it seems appropriate. It was a minor unit action, not a full blown battle. We should also consider deleting the outcome per that article, removing British victory. Justin talk 22:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Justin. This was just a small patrols engagement, like Many Branch Point, with no major consequences on the course of the conflict.--Darius (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree also I think Fanning Head merit its own article too --Jor70 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree --Keysanger 12:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Top Malo House → Skirmish at Top Malo House &mdash; See discussion above. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Skirmish at Top Malo House. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Mountain-Arctic-Warfare-Cadre.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

is it possible to put: argentine invasion/argentina recuperation? i this article? so, that way would be a neutral article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.171.68 (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Outcome
I think it is very clear this is a small engagement that was won by Argentine forces.Don Brunett (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett
 * Really, why? The Argentine forces were all killed, wounded or captured.  Aside from anything else common practise on wikipedia is to not use such terms on small engagements.    WCM email 21:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi folks. The article's name reads "skirmish". The consequences of such a small actions didn't change or influence the final outcome of the war, so there is consensus in these cases to leave the "result" entry blank, since the use of this parameter is optional (you can use a "see aftermath section" with a link if you want). On the other hand, it's obvious that the Royal Marines prevailed during the engagement, as you can see in the aforementioned "aftermath" section.--Darius (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is disagreement on whether using "skirmish" is wrong, and no consensus seems likely to come out of it. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Skirmish at Top Malo House → Action at Top Talo House – A skirmish is defined as an accidental encounter. This was not the case; it was deliberately planned. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've undone the move as this article was moved to its present title following a move discussion in 2010. Of course that can change but I would suggest a move discussion first.  The 2010 discussion is still above. WCM email 07:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I only saw it afterwards. A skirmish is defined as an accidental encounter. This was not the case; it was deliberately planned. I propose that the title be changed to "Action at Top Talo House". I've looked at various sources and descriptions are "Raid on Top Talo House", "Battle of Top Talo House" and "Firefight at Top Talo House"; Spanish sources use "combate de Top Malo House". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The original title was Battle at Top Malo House, prompted by Nik Van der Bijls's book Nine Battles to Stanley, however whilst it may have made for a snappy book title it didn't reflect the action, which was a clash of two small units. I am opposed to going back to Battle but am OK with your alternative suggestions. WCM email 08:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Definition comment: The idea that the word skirmish can refer only to an accidential encounter is wrong. See skirmish, Skirmish and Battle. None of those say that a skirmish needs to be an accidental encounter. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It is implied by our skirmish article. See also   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the word may sometimes be used that way, it is also often used just to refer to any conflict that is brief and relatively small/minor. Some dictionaries that do not even mention the idea of a lack of planning include Merriam-Webster, Collins, American Heritage and Random House (the last two are according to The Free Dictionary). The Cambridge definition that you cited says "usually" not planned, which does not rule out the possibility of using the word for a planned encounter. The Skirmish article on Wikipedia just says a skirmish is "A battle with only light, relatively indecisive combat", without saying planning cannot be involved. I'm not saying the title should necessarily use the word, but I'm convinced the word can apply. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Relister comment Relisting due to the premise of "skirmish" being incorrect being disputed by BarrelProof, who contends that "skirmish" is indeed correctly used. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A skirmish seems to accurately and clearly describe the clash. The only support offered for a skirmish being accidental is an implication in an unreliable source, while several RSs have been offered suggesting the contrary. "Action" would not, I strongly suspect, clearly convey what the article was about for the vast majority of readers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Numbers still don't add up
The article originally gave the size of the Argentine patrol as twelve. The Argentine sources list thirteen names. That is easy to explain; the twelve does not include the commander. Early British sources give five dead, seven wounded and five prisoners. Freedman (2005) says 2 dead, seven wounded and five prisoners, so we are going with that. But Freedman's numbers come to fourteen, not thirteen. Miscounting the dead is easy, especially when people are blown to bits, but prisoners are counted. Boswell (2021) says that the Argentine force also included two blowpipe operators and two medics, who are not counted in Argentine sources since they were not members of 602 Commande Company. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen the numbers varying quite a lot. I must admit I relied on Freedman as the definitive source, with this being the Official History.  WCM email 07:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)