Talk:Falklands War

Position of third party countries

I supported the inclusion of the section about "Position of third party countries" but it has become to a lawless sandbox for testing the limits of Wikipedia. It is necessary to re-establish the rules of Wikipedia in the "list". I want to show only two cases:

• "aircraft spare parts" seem to be not very releveant to the story
• Spanish abstain in the UN-security council: it was for or against what? Argentina or Britain?

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

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

Proposed introduction:

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

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

Proposed description:

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

The newspaper article states that:

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

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

I think the best refrence is [1], for Peru as well as Israel. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit is very good, especially the introduction. Jnorthdur (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jnorthdur. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Luke96241,

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

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

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

Hi Ranger Steve, you improved the subsection, but anyway I would say that:

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

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

Peru or Perú

MOS:FOREIGN says:

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

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

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

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

I'm not "WCM", and I'm agreeing with you. (Hohum ^@) 17:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm afraid I mistakenly believed I was reading two comments, one unsigned. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would prefer Perú, but the main page is named Peru. I think this issue should be resolved first in the main page, not here. Please, perfect is enough, don't exaggerate your perfectionism. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WCM. Ok, Strength of argument. English sources overwhelmingly use Peru without an accent. This is the English encyclopedia. Do you have anything other than "the original is close" and "there is a Spanish interest". Both seem purely your preference rather than wider community opinion per the guidance already stated. (Hohum ^@) 00:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Never seen Peru written with an accent in any English print. Peru without accent is the WP:COMMONNAME of the state and should be used above personal preference. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WCM, you appear to be cherry picking half a sentence from the guideline. There is no blanket preference for accents, there *is* a preference for what English sources use, accent or not. In this case, clearly not. (Hohum ^@) 18:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I failed to notice your reply, I don't see this as cherry picking and I didn't claim there is a blanket preference either way. This is one example of guidelines conflicting and I'm quite happy for a consenus to emerge and follow it, even if I personally disagree with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV

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

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

Mabuska ^(talk) 12:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Lets not mention the fact it may violate WP:WEIGHT due to lack of sources attributed to it, and the fact the source is quite dated having being published in 1983. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Mike Storry and Peter Childs, British Cultural Identities (Psychology Press, 2002), Page 14, section on "xenophobia": "This happens instantly, and newspapers can rally support against an 'enemy' overnight. In 1981, the Sun orchestrated hatred for 'the Argies' over the Falklands conflict. Most Sun readers were unaware where the Falkland Islands were, but they rose to the invitation to be xenophobic anyway."
• Philip Taylor, "From Psychological Warfare to Information Operations and Back Again," in The Ashgate Research Companion to Modern Warfare, edited by George Kassimeris and John Buckley, Page 425: ("The Falklands conflict was no different, although the excessively jingoistic headlines of The Sun newspaper ('UP YOURS GALTIERI!', 'ARGIE BARGEY' and 'GOTCHA') resulted in a downturn in readership."

I hope this helps. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 07:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The first quote you provide does not call the Sun xenophobic and requires a bit of interpretation to get at the that. The second quote however is clear and exact enough for the term "jingoistic" in regards to the Sun. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The first quote is difficult to understand without reading the section "Xenophobia" from the start. We could take it to the RSN or Language Board to see what they get out of it. I suppose better sources exist, nonetheless. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The headlines are probably jingoistic but there's nothing that I would understand as "xenophobic" in either of those quoted in the article. As it stands, the article is a long way from presenting a neutral point of view, even if the opinion of those authors is correctly summarised. Given the rather contentious nature of a claim that the Sun was guilty of these things, it's acceptable to report these views but not to state them as fact. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I reworded, while preserving the assertion of jingoism and xenophobia. The tone of this is a long way from impartial, even if the Sun probably was jingoistic. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with the rewording, trying to pretend such accusations didn't exist citing WP:NPOV was the problem. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand that. Do you object to my rewording? I'm happy to discuss. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No sorry if my meaning was unclear, I don't object in the slightest and regard it as an improvement. What I objected to was the original premise that such comments violated WP:NPOV or even WP:WEASEL when in fact they simply reflected what was many people's opinion at the time and since. I trust this is clear? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah sorry, yes. My fault, I should have understood the first time. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WCM please don't convolute other editors intents. I never pretended such accusations didn't exist or weren't valid and i suggest you keep your personal politics out of discussions as well as what can well be considered baseless opinion (quote: "when in fact they simply reflected what was many people's opinion at the time and since"). The wording as it was was strongely suggestive of breeching WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Whilst the re-wording is better than what was there, it is still light on sources to show it has WP:WEIGHT. If your claim is the opinion of many people, then sources shouldn't be a problem. Note how i am not objecting to its inclusion at all - just the manner of it based on the sources so far produced. After all we must adhere to the already stated polciies as well as WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE and all that mumbo-jumbo. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So often when we make remarks about others, we reveal our own motivations by projecting them onto others. This is nothing to do with my personal politics and I originally objected to the edit myself as the archive shows. Note I commented on content and logic not editors. Now unless you have a substantive point to raise I see no point in further dicussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It was the bad faith you displayed a few comments back that stoked my bad faith in response. So i'd suggest you also keep to commenting on content and not editors. None-the-less i have raised substantative points to do with Wiki policies and if you wish to forego any further discussion on it then by all means, we can continue on without you. Now would you care to discuss the points on the content i raised in my last comment as after all it did contain content and logic comments as well as editor comments. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Once again i suggest that you follow your own advice in regards to commenting on content and not editors.

How exactly is anything i've said WP:IDONTLIKE? What exactly do you think i am saying or proposing? Are you even reading the discussion at all? You keep coming out of with personal opinion without any evidence for your viewpoints and statements? For example: "Regarding weight, few books on the Falklands War don't comment on the Sun's coverage in pretty much the same manner as the article." - "pretty much the same manner" is hardly verifiable or academic considering you fail to produce once again sources to prove your points.

I made a change to the article that is hardly controversial taking into account that only one source is used to prove the statement. The change simply attributes the statement to the actual author of the source - a simple way to address the above policy issues i mentioned. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, well I have read the discussion and your demand to remove material does not have consensus, nor does your attempt to water it down by presenting it as the opinion of a single author. You also appear to have missed the fact that I originally opposed this and are proceeding on your presumption of my opinion. I merely mention WP:IDONTLIKE because you appear very angry about this for some reason and seem to be taking it very personally. Now if youy wish to discuss content fine but don't disrupt the article to make your point, especially whilst others are trying to improve it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that User:Mabuska has changed his post after I replied to it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually i was editing it before you left a response, however for some reason an edit-conflict never came up when i hit submit which should of came up. However for posterity here is what i originally had when WCM left a response. The only difference is a minor tone down and addition of an extra arguement or two. Also seeing as there is only a minute (quite probavbly less in real-time) difference between my edit and your reply - do you really think i can change my comment that quickly and precisely in a matter of seconds intentionally?

Other than that please stop distorting other editors comments as you are continually doing. Also please don't try to mislead other editors. For example

• You originally opposed what exactly? You never beforehand opposed the change i recently made as of today - you opposed the re-wording of the sentence made by the IP that i reverted your revert of several days ago. Completely different change.
• How is that edit disruptive? No-one opposed to it and it is more balanced than implying a wider held opinion backed up by a single source.
• How is the edit anymore disruptive than that made by Lo2u? His was an undiscussed edit too that "watered" it down.
• Where is this explicit demand i've made that it must be removed? This is a gross distortion of my original comment that unless it was sourced it should be removed. You have since made it clear that it is with the attached source.

Mabuska ^(talk) 14:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also add in this point:

• "Undid revision 475224609 by Mabuska (talk) rv per talk - no this is not just the opinion of a single author" - where is your evidence at? You've only provided personal opinion that it is a commonly held opinion. If it is then surely you have evidence. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20 showed us other sources than Robert Harris, so it's not just the opinion of a single author. Furthermore you statement "the fact the source is quite dated having being published in 1983." is rather odd. The Sun's headlines were accessible to anyone in 1983, as well as today. When secret military documents become declassified, old books can get outdated. But here Robert Harris compared the media coverage, which is quite public. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Those sources were already commented upon above. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you asked for evidence i.e. other authors than Robert Harris. MarshalN20 provided us with e.g. George Kassimeris & John D. Buckley. You seems to have forgotten it 5 February. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Kelvin MacKenzie, now sources have already been provided and you're still quibbling but just a few more and no they weren't difficult to find.

• John Pilger (1998), Hidden Agendas, Vintage, pp. 445–449
• Mike Storry and Peter Childs, British Cultural Identities (Psychology Press, 2002), Page 14, section on "xenophobia": "This happens instantly, and newspapers can rally support against an 'enemy' overnight. In 1981, the Sun orchestrated hatred for 'the Argies' over the Falklands conflict. Most Sun readers were unaware where the Falkland Islands were, but they rose to the invitation to be xenophobic anyway."
• Philip Taylor, "From Psychological Warfare to Information Operations and Back Again," in The Ashgate Research Companion to Modern Warfare, edited by George Kassimeris and John Buckley, Page 425: ("The Falklands conflict was no different, although the excessively jingoistic headlines of The Sun newspaper ('UP YOURS GALTIERI!', 'ARGIE BARGEY' and 'GOTCHA') resulted in a downturn in readership."
• Robert Harris (1983). Gotcha!: the media, the government, and the Falklands crisis. Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-13052-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=-JJlQgAACAAJ. Retrieved 5 February 2012. 
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5] Quite a good summary of the coverage. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Running with scissors is a very silly thing to do! Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Changes by Clarityfiend

Clarityfiend made following changes [6] :

Case A:

• France provided dissimilar aircraft training allowing Harrier pilots to train against French aircraft used by Argentina.

was changed to

• France provided aircraft, allowing Harrier pilots to train against French aircraft like those possessed by Argentina.

It is not the same "aircraft" than "dissimilar aircfart training". I think the old version were correct

Case B:

• Chile gave support to Britain in the form of Intelligence about Argentine military and radar early warning.

was changed to

• Chile provided Britain with intelligence about Argentine military and radar early warning systems.

Chile didn't provide radar systems.

Case C:

• triangulated over Peru{{clarify}}

what is unclear?

Case D:

all in all, requiring four trips of two Boeing 707s of the AAF{{clarify}}

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

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

Mediation Cabal

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

So, we have a MedCab closed[7][8] without agreement. Quoting ItZippy,[9] consensus seems to be in favor of including Margaret Thatcher, but right now we don't even have the discussed section in the infobox. Were do we go from here? --Langus (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Err, no, the MedCab specifically said Zippy should not have stated that and it compromised mediation. The position is we grow up and discuss the matter without the crap that meant discussion was compromised before. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to where it says that please? Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Its on the main MedCab talk page Steve and Zippy's talk page. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting to see there were some side discussions that no-one else was notified of. Anyway, I still don't see anything that "specifically said Zippy should not have stated that and it compromised mediation.". Can you elaborate on how you've reached this conclusion? Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

They were announced in the mediation page and its there in black and white. I don't see the point in indulging in a semantic argument with you because I have used slightly different wording. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Then please provide a link or diff, because I really can't see it. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘[10] Wee Curry Monster talk 10:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Right... this is a non specific discussion, between editors who confess they haven't read the case, and it isn't on the case page. You really need to elaborate on how that "specifically said Zippy should not have stated that and it compromised mediation", whether you want to indulge in semantics or not. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No I don't, nor do I intend to. Mediation finished due to lost interest. Do you wish to restart it? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Where in that diff does it say the mediation was compromised? Where does it say specifically that it shouldn't be done? Where does it specify this mediation case? It doesn't support your conclusion at all. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you wish to restart mediation? Its a yes or no answer. I have no intention of wasting time on pointless bickering. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you answer my question first, rather than avoiding it? Understanding of your position will affect my response. Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Public relations

What is the evidence that the RN wanted positive coverage? Did not the government in fact want such coverage? Surely references to British and Argentine troops is not inconsistent with positive coverage. Where did the "our lads" and the "dehumanised Argies" come from - I doubt the Royal Navy wanted those to be the normal terms for the participants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"What is the evidence that the RN wanted positive coverage?" = Harris, Robert, GOTCHA! The Media, the Government and the Falklands Crisis. Faber and Faber, 1983: "You must have been told you couldn't report bad news ...You were expected to do a 1940 propaganda job."

2): "the Argentinians, who had been dehumanised by the name 'Argies'"; not "dehumanised Argies". The NAME 'Argies' was dehumanising, like Krauts for Germans in WWII etc. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How does that extract prove the *RN* wanted positive coverage, it doesn't seem specific to the RN. In fact, it doesn't specify anyone. Some context for the quote please? (Hohum ^@) 23:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@124.197.15.138 you're mixing two statements; Royal Navy never specified that Argentines should be called "Argies", it was The Sun who did it on its own accord. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:A-4C Tte casco.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A-4C Tte casco.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion request

You may be interested to follow commons:Commons:Deletion requests/PD-AR-Photo de la Guerra de Malvinas. Photos taken in Argentina in 1982 are in the PD in Argentina, but not in the US, and may need to be deleted. Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC) (wilikink improved. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC))

So what you're saying is that useful Commons images should be transferred to en.wiki as Non-free media? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No, non-free images have requirements that free images in Commons do not have. They must be used in at least one article, only in articles, they must have a valid rationale, they can't be used for identification of living people, a given article may not have too many non-free images, etc. The images are nominated in Commons because of the recent outcome of the URAA discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sure - I wasn't suggesting that we should convert the Argentine photos en masse. All I said was that if some of the photos were important enough to be used as Non-free images, with the restrictions you mentioned, we should do it now. Because when they have been deleted at Commons, it'll be too late. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if nobody provides a reason to counter the reason for deletion, it may be possible to request to delay the actual deletion until the selection and move of images that may be uploaded as non-free is finished. There are hundreds of images around in jeopardy because of the recent URAA thing, leaving them around for a while shouldn't be problematic. And even if someone rushes to delete the files, I'm administrator and may retrieve deleted files and upload them here if requested.

By the way, have in mind that this URAA thing is a huge thing. Basically, all users interested in non-US topics of the XX century should check the status of the images used, and if they are at risk then begin to migrate images if possible before they are deleted. The Argentine military junta is another topic whose images may be mass-nominated, but that's a hard work for another day (making mass deletion requests is a long and tedious work) Cambalachero (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Galtieri.jpg or File:FotoOficialGaltieri.jpg might be useful at Leopoldo Galtieri, File:Fotoametralladora Dagger Malvinas.jpg seems irreplaceable by present photos and File:Exocet ITB.jpg explains it better than a thousand words. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg too. I made a request that whoever closes the DR do not delete the images immediately, but after a week, giving time to select and upload here the desired images. But I wouldn't advise to upload the images here under non-free exceptions before the DR is closed: even if unlikely, it is plausible that someone may provide a legal reasoning that may allow to keep the images in Commons (after all, I'm no lawyer, I can easily be proved mistaken in legal issues by someone who is). It would be rude to act as if the DR was a closed discussion when it isn't, for the same reason that we don't go unlinking articles nominated at AFD before they are actually deleted. Cambalachero (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I declined this deletion request for the moment, as Wikipedia in Spanish is currently discussing if they will allow or not the use of local uploads. Still, the images will be deleted from Commons at some point, and by then it would be better to have an idea of which ones should be kept here as well Cambalachero (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused (easily done). "Photos taken in Argentina in 1982 are in the PD in Argentina, but not in the US, and may need to be deleted." - Surely (most of?) these images weren't taken in Argentina, but in the Falklands. (Hohum ^@) 01:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster

In removing a clause of content about French support for Argentina, you also deleted this relevant reference, entitled "How France helped both sides in the Falklands War": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975 . As an alternative to deleting the relevant reference outright, how about restoring it with a clause of content you can accept? -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

France didn't support Argentina, your source makes that plain, it is also plain that it was individuals disobeying the instruction of their country's Government that were responsible. Feel free to suggest an edit here in talk before putting it into the article if you feel it merits coverage but it should reflect your source not personal opinion. My personal opinion per WP:NOTNEWS much of it is irrelevant and about the only thing you might think of adding, is that the Exocet was inoperational until those individuals disobeyed instructions to help the Argentines. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You removed the reference, it could waste a lot of time if I keep trying variations until we find one that you accept; it makes more sense for you to propose one that you are happy with, per normal consensus editing procedure. Incidentally, the BBC item is a history piece based on evidence, not a news report. Moreover it says "France helped both sides in the Falklands War", that is clearly not my personal opinion but what the verifiable source states. You appear to have suggested I added personal opinion, in which case are you certain that your personal opinion is not an issue here? If we can't find a solution, let's get a WP:3O and not waste more time than this is worth. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Except your source makes it plain that the French Government did not support Argentina, that help was there before the war and that contrary to the instructions of the French Government individuals decided off their own back to assist. Don't play semantic games with the headlines the source DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR EDIT (emphasis added) it your edit was directly contradicted by your source. And again its a news report, from a current affairs programme, so quit playing semantics. I see little of interest, other than the Argentines managed to get it to work with minor help from the French team in country who were not authorised to do what they did. The edit is still in the history - and I am not proposing an edit as I don't believe the content is particularly relevant other than a very small part. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy, I'm not playing anything, and I am working in good faith. Let's see if some outside opinion helps. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems I jumped into the middle of this unintentionally, having not read this page before independently adding my bit about the French technical team. I trust my version is acceptable. 121.45.201.66 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw it, your edit was fine. The text was neutral and reflected the source. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)