This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello to @Drmies:, @Chaheel Riens:,@Roger 8 Roger: and to anyone interested.
I recently added a chart showing the British command structure for Operation Corporate. This was removed and my reverts were reverted twice. Here are the reasons why I created it in the first place.
Operation Corporate is an amphibious operation. These are typically very complex and the command structure must evolve as the operation takes place. The problem is not limited to logistics, as suggested in the first revert but has an impact on the whole of the operation (who is in charge of what? who owns the helicopters? when does the land force commander take over ? etc. etc.).
A chart, or a drawing or a graphic, is better than a thousand words to explain to the layman the complexity of the command relationship in an amphibious operation. In fact, I think the topic alone would be worth a new paragraph.
You'd be surprised to hear how many people think RADM Woodward was in charge, after having read only his book. He doesn't lie of course but he doesn't provide a command structure chart either in his book when both Brigadier Thompson and Commodore Clapp do in theirs. Not surprising at they are the experts and they know it can be difficult to explain who does what and when.
Hope this helps.
Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Domenjod, what I can say right off the bat is that such an image without accompanying text is hard to parse. An explanation (which must be brief but well-sourced, of course) would go a long way toward enlightening the reader. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Dowenjod, This article is about the Falklands War, not about the UK task force, or about the overall UK command structure. The detail you have given, even if put into text, is too specific to just one aspect of the war. It also creates an imbalance to what is already an article with a UK weighting (which I accept is probably inevitable). Why don't you supply a similar chart of the Argentine command structure and add that too? At least that would help balance things out a bit. If there is going to be an explanation of the UK command structure it should be very brief (one or two sentences within a sub-section) and only deal with the top layer or two. Find another another article that deals more specifically with the command structure, or, if you can establish notability, start an article of your own. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I have a couple of comments - firstly regarding my edit summary of it being contentious - yes, reversion by one editor is enough for it to be contentious, although it was actually reverted by two, which compounds the status. Regardless, it is extremely poor form to blindly re-insert new information and insist that an opposing editor justifies removal, rather than follow the BRD practice of discussing it prior to re-insertion.
My opinions surrounding the content of the edit are pretty much a summary of above - to include only one command structure and not the other seems a bit undue, and yet to include both may well be just excessive all round - the article already has 30 images, and two very specific images would need to be carefully placed so they fit with the flow of the rest of the article. Saying that an image is better than a thousand words is not applicable when the image itself is sparse and needs explanation of who and what are contained within it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised by the above. The British command structure graphic is quite useful, and similar images are a standard part of histories of the war. That a similar image is needed for the Argentine forces isn't grounds to remove this, especially as org charts like this can be very quickly created in programs like MS Word. The only suggestion I have for the image here is that it needs a source, but it certainly looks accurate. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for taking the time to answer. All points well taken. Here are my comments or answers.
It is always difficult to write a balanced article : one that provides the expected amount of information without "writing a long and boring book". But I still think - and I am glad to see I am not alone - a command structure graphic (or two) would be useful in the main article for the reasons already explained above. Look at the German wiki article for exemple. It expands on the command structure (without chart, so far). I am sure there are others.
The way the article is written, it might be hard to insert a - very useful indeed - short paragraph explaining the command structure and the issues it adresses. I also suggested to write one in my first comment above. It could also be inserted in Paragraph 7 Aftermath/7.1 Military analysis but I'd rather have it earlier in the article, where I initially placed it. Commenting on the respective UK and argentine command structures could also include other comparisons (pros vs conscripts etc.) but I'll re-read the whole article again before making more suggestions as some of the topics I am thinking of may already have been covered elsewhere.
An argentine (argentinian?) command structure chart is already available in Commons. Unfortunately, it is very simple (and in spanish). I don't read spanish so I may not be the best person to adapt it (and, yes, thank you for stating that it would be nice to have one but that my UK chart shouldn't be removed juste because I didn't provide an argentine one as well).
In the meantime, I am going to modify my chart (yes I was thinking of writing the sources but forgot...) and make a few other minor changes.
I won't comment on the revert issue because I think it is taking us nowhere at this time but I'll re-read the articles pointed to by CR.
Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Mmm, Nick and I usually agree but I am not 100% convinced on this occasion but I am willing to be convinced.
Taking the issues one by one. @Domenjod: an experienced editor should have known better than to continue revert warring once they have been reverted. Per WP:BRD you should have resorted to the talk page when first reverted. You appear to have presumed bad faith in the person reverting you and edit warred. Having seen this happen many times before, all that will result is high drama and ultimately your long term block for edit warring. The graphic as currently formulated needs to be revised for the English wikipedia and the French language text removed. In addition, when first added it was uncited, uncited material does tend to be removed so I would suggest an appropriate cite should be provided.
As to whether to include it, I am unconvinced that it is appropriate for an article of this nature, which exists to provide an overview of the conflict. To my mind this would seem more appropriate to an article on the command structure. I am minded to suggest that a specialist article would be more apposite. Having just done a sweep of Gulf War, Iran-Iraq War and similar articles, I have not seen similar graphics. WCMemail 11:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
To add, I did a quick canter through your contributions and this isn't the first time you've reverted others. You might also want to look at WP:V and WP:RS as what you added as a citation was simply a personal comment. WCMemail 11:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll clarify my statements somewhat:
I'm not massively against the addition of the graphic, but I am against the re-insertion of the graphic after it had been removed, and insistence that justification comes from the removing editor(s).
I think it should be a case of both or neither. Not only does including the Argentinian structure as well as the British absolve any undue issues, but, well, isn't it just common sense to have both, rather than just the one belligerent?
Saying that the inserting editor isn't going to "comment on the revert issue because [they] think it is taking us nowhere at this time" also shows a potentially worrying lack of concern over behaviour. Domenjod appears to be a relatively experienced editor, they should be aware of and abide by basic editing etiquette by now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello WCM. Thanks for your input and for the links, but, as I wrote above, I am not going to comment on the revert issue (in fact, I just did, after reading CR's comment posted almost simultaneously, please see below). I think everyone - including you and me - should look at their own reverting record (in this article for example) and take a break. Friendly advise is welcome of course but tracking someone else's contributions is not. (CR, I hope the above answers you last message as well. Sorry if you perceive it as a "potentially worrying lack of concern over behaviour". My point : my post is reverted by another editor who did a lot of reverts in the previous weeks and didn't bother to go to the talk page first. Looks to me like one-person censorship (I don't like what you wrote so I remove it). In the end, I am the one having to explain in the talk page why I dared modify the article in the first place. Fine, doesn't look logical to me but I am not going to lose sleep over it. My only concern is if I hurt your feelings, which I hope is not the case.).
Regarding your other points (WCM) :
Is it an appropriate topic in this article? I already gave my opinion so I won't repeat it here. It's all written above. As for the other articles you're refering to, I don't know. Maybe there were no usable sources for command structure charts available. Maybe the command structure was deemed not as complex as in an amphibious operation. For this article, the sources are available and the information is useful. So let's use it. And, as suggested, let's place it in the right place, with appropriate comments. Further, if an article of this nature, (which) exists to provide an overview of the conflict, then a lot needs to be removed indeed. I agree it is very difficult to find the right balance, especially with different contributors but, to me, understanding how the war was lead - and managed - is as important as knowing the details of the battles at squad level. Finally, the command structure chart might also belong in other articles, especially : British naval forces in the Falklands War although, at this time, it is presented as only a list of ships.
French text needs to be removed. If it is a personal opinion, please explain. If it is a WP rule, please point it to me. I'll be glad to oblige.
The need for citation of sources has already been mentioned - and acknowledged - above.
Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
We are digressing from the actual edit somewhat, but you are either missing or evading the point - there was nothing wrong with you "daring to modify the article", that obviously happens all the time, the issue is that you dared to modify the article again after your initial edit was challenged, and you still don't seem to see anything wrong with that even after it has been pointed out to you. It has been explained that it not the down to the reverting editor to open up discussion (although out of courtesy that does happen,) but that of the original editor. As I've said, I'm not necessarily against the changes, but I am against the way you're going about them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. Nothing to do with evading the point. My usual behavior is to assume an addition is useful. If I revert someone's edition, I'll explain why in comment and if my revert is reverted, I'll think I need to explain more and I'll go to the Talk page in order to explain why I took the responsability to remove or modify someone else's contribution. Out of courtesy to the editor and the other readers. Sounded so logical to me that I didn't even bother to check the rules. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. In the meantime, I have uploaded the revised file with a few changes, sources and english text only. It is here : Operation Corporate command structure 1982. Rgds, --Domenjod (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I had another look at the graphic and comments by others, including Nick-D's. My view is still the same. Personally made files can be useful and sometimes look nice, but often they are just the result of someone's computer doodling after reading a book on the topic, and they do not add much. Importantly they take up a disproportionate amount of space compared to text. All this is what has happened here. Domenjod, your reply comes across as an arrogant ignorance, and slightly rude to long standing and knowledgeable contributers. You should by now have more than a newcomer's knowledge of how wikipedia works, but you repeat some basic errors. This article is full of UK forces detail, most of it seemingly based on the latest book someone has read. That is fine but we must not go overboard and we should get that detail in context. There is a lot more to the war that just the UK armed forces. On balance, I still think the graphic is overkill and should not be there. an Argentine version would create balance but would also take up a disproportionate amount of space. If you cannot see why the inclusion in it of a French translation is inappropriate, well...what do I say? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually Domenjod, this is really a matter of editor conduct, you're refusing to address the central issue that your edit warring was a problem. Even going so far as to accuse the editor who reverted you of censorship. So taking a look at those reverts [1] entirely in line with stated policy, together with an informative edit summary. Which is exactly what he did with your edit, along with a helpful suggestion where it might be useful. So it seems you weren't even applying your own standards. It's perfectly reasonable to look at someone's editing history in cases where there is a concern and an editor just doesn't seem to get it. And it seems you just don't get it, WP:BRD actually puts the onus on you to discuss why you believe your edit should be added as the result of consensus building with your fellow editors.
And I'm not swayed by your argument, if this was as massively useful to gaining an understanding of the conflict then other comparable articles would contain similar charts. I spent some time looking and I found they didn't. Perhaps you could offer an example of such a chart in a similar article I might be swayed but at the moment I would have to agree with Roger 8 Roger that it isn't appropriate for this article. WCMemail 19:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Would the chart be more appropriate/useful in one or more of the following?
Perfectly sensible suggestion. WCMemail 20:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Hohum, Thanks for your input. I already mentionned the first article (naval forces) in a thread above but what this article really provides is a list of ships/units and nothing else, at least at this time. Adding the chart could be useful but it would require changing the scope - and the content - of the article. But in any case, I still think the chart belongs in the main article (preferably together with an argentine force chart).
@Roger & Roger, when I read your posts, with patronizing comments such as "just the result of someone's computer doodling after reading a book on the topic" and "your reply comes across as an arrogant ignorance, and slightly rude to long standing and knowledgeable contributers", I get the impression that you should sleep over this and take a fresh look at this issue tomorrow. A few good questions for you might be : after having made so many contributions and reverts, am I getting to the point where I think I own this article and am allowed to block any addition I don't like ? Am I getting to the point where, as a self-appointed "long standing and knowledgeable contributer" I am getting full of myself? Am I allowing this "near edit war" to cloud my judgment. Am I not forgetting about the real issue which is content and usefulness?
Why I reverted shouldn't be an issue anymore. I explained above why I honestly followed a logical (to me) path which happened not to be the WP rule. This was corrected. So are we going to discuss it for another month or should we concentrate on improving the article? After all, if the amphibious force commander and the landing force commander both thought it would be useful to include a command structure chart in their memoirs, maybe even the "long standing and knowledeable contributors" could consider including one in the article without taking up "a disproportionate amount of space" (disproportionate, are you kidding ? This discussion is taking a disproportionate amount of space - and time).
Same remark to Wee Curry Monster. Having made so many contributions doesn't make you the ultimate judge on what is appropriate or still missing in this article. I would even venture to say that having contributed so much doesn't help one in taking a fresh look at an article. Please don't take this as a blame. It's just a fact of life. So thanks for your input anyway but please listen to what others have to say (and at least, thank you for having avoided patronizing or condescending language). --Domenjod (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Mmmm, I had a look, WP:BRD is no different on the French wikipedia [2]. So I'm pretty sure that someone who has been editing there since 2013 would be familiar with it by now. And really editor conduct is what kicked this off - yours. And you seem unable to simply apologise for what was boorish behaviour. Which you are now continuing, telling people they are not allowed to comment. I would also suggest you take your own advice and let others contribute to the discussion; because you're dominating it right now and that will deter outside comment. So I'm going to close my contribution to this discussion by saying the discussion so far has convinced me the content proposed has no place in this article. I would now strongly oppose the addition in this article. WCMemail 23:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I don'think the scope of those articles would be changed at all. Including the leadership of the forces is part of the organisation of the forces. (Hohum@) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
By what authority is the "Gotcha" headlined declared 'infamous'. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be several fairly reliable sources. [3] Just google the key words. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
[4] Plenty of such examples. WCMemail 09:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I think 'controversial' would be the better, more balanced term. Valetude (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
In most cases I believe you would be correct, however, this was such a crass headline that in fact infamous is actually apt in this case. And as noted, this is a widely held view in the literature. WCMemail 16:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
No doubt we, the silent majority, just have to remember our official place as non-persons in the debate. Valetude (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Infamous works for me. There's plenty of sourcing for it. Also, despiteWP:DAILYMAIL and the UK newspaper ban, we need to keep the source from The Sun itself in here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Crypto Intelligence
I see someone has recently added a reference to the UK receiving crypto-intelligence from the United States. It has been in the news a lot recently because of a German/US documentary on the Crypo-AG company, which claimed it was owned by the CIA and they had put a back door in the machines they sold. To some extent the story is exaggerated, the UK had broken the Argentine codes years before and was reading their diplomatic traffic (a fact revealed by a Labour politician back in 1982), so they had their own access and didn't need this to be supplied by the US (though I'm sure they would have if asked). I'm wondering just how much to include, relying on the recent press stories would give a rather distorted picture? For example, Major Thorn's book(?) on military intelligence written some time after the war revealed that the British knew that the ARA Belgrano was moving to a holding position rather than withdrawing based on decrypted naval signals. There was also a crypto-intelligence cell on HMS Fearless. Opening for discussion. WCMemail 08:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you are insinuating here. None of your alternative stories contradict anything I stated. I provided exact system that the Americans cracked and passed over to the UK. You merely mentioned that codes were "broken" by other parties but your vague-ness is evidence that it's empty talk. What other code encryption was broken? Which company or government institution in which country devised that other system? Lack of concrete facts indicate you are simply talking about UK having access to intercept Argentine communication in London. It's one thing to intercept — it's another thing to decode. So for all intents and purposes you are talking about the same thing as I (the UK intercepted the comms then needed CIA's help to de-cypher them. And the fact that the UK had its own crypto-intelligence cell that initially tried to do it alone is moot. You are living in some illogical bubble that one thing excludes the other. If I have a bottle opener that doesn't preclude that I still want to borrow your opener if mine doesn't work for some reason.
Also notice that your alternative theories do not preclude anything. You did NOT say that the Labour politician and the book are both insisting that the job was done without CIA / BND assistance. --Loginnigol (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The Washington Post article says this: In 1982, the Reagan administration took advantage of Argentina’s reliance on Crypto equipment, funneling intelligence to Britain during the two countries’ brief war over the Falkland Islands, according to the CIA history, which doesn’t provide any detail on what kind of information was passed to London. The documents generally discuss intelligence gleaned from the operation in broad terms and provide few insights into how it was used. This source does not therefore warrant the comments used in the article that clearly imply the US provided useful intelligence information that helped the UK during the war. I think the comments about the US supplying Argentine secrets to the UK be amended to reflect the unknown importance of that information, or else left out until better sourced detail are available. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any theories, I am simply reporting what the sources say. As wikipedians we should not be developing pet theories and worse inserting those into articles. As to your supposition, you were incorrect and need to look at what the source I provided says. Specifically it states that the British broke the Argentine codes in their own right and were able to read Argentine crypto traffic in real time. It should be remembered that the products sold by Crypto-AG were commercial machines based on the original Enigma machine that the British broke at Bletchley park in WW2. As noted by Roger above, the source you have used doesn't provide any detail on the intelligence passed to London or whether it played any role in the conflict. I am always wary of using press sources, particularly ones sensationalising the article to bring in readers, which is very much the case here. I would agree we should remove this material or edit to better reflect what the article actually says. WCMemail 13:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Haig siding with Argentina?
"In 2012, declassified files from the Reagan Library showed that the U.S. Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, wanted Reagan to side with Argentina over the Falklands.[48]" This sounds suspiciously like only half the story. I don't have full access to the subsciption only WSJ citation, but there are other media articles written at the time that discuss the shuttle diplomacy period and they do mention US 'equivocation', but nothing that could be described as taking the Argentine side. Without a very clear quoted, or freely available, reference I wonder if this sentence should be removed? As it is it feels out of place, lacking the full picture. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
To show even handedness, Haig wanted to warn Argentina that the UK was about to attack South Georgia. It was such a mad idea that it quickly got shut down by the US administration. I don't know if I'd describe that as siding with Argentina? WCMemail 09:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
That's near enough what I thought after reading a couple of newspaper articles reporting what was obviously the same story that were free - Guardian and Daily Mail (sorry, ugly word I know). I don't think the sentence belongs there - it doesn't show even handedness to me. If anything it should go into a new subsection about the shuttle diplomacy that I am surprised is missing from this article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Soviet and Chilean involvement
The intro card states that the Soviets were belligerents in the war, but every other part of the article shows that the soviets had lukewarm at best relations with the Junta.
By the same token, Chile were actively assisting the British much more than the Soviet Union could be said to assist Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.97.195 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the Soviets rendered a vital support to Britain by letting the mandatory UNSC Resolution 502 pass, refraining from using their veto power in the UN Security Council. Apcbg (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That wouldn't make them a belligerent. (Hohum@) 19:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Civilian Losses
What exactly are the civilian losses for the Falklands War? There is a mention of 3 Islanders killed by "friendly fire," but why is it termed friendly? Does that mean the British accidentally shelled the civilians, and if so, the infobox should reflect that (assuming they are the only civilian dead).
In addition, there is a bullet point in the casualties section about 16 Argentinian civilians dead. It is unsourced. Assuming a source is provided, and assuming 16 actually did die, shouldn't that be in the infobox? 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It isn't as simple as you portray, there are a number of factors that came into play. Firstly, the Argentines made no provision for civil defence and for the protection of civilians as required by the Geneva Conventions. Secondly, the Argentines placed key pieces of military equipment and personnel next to civilian areas seeking to effectively use them as human shields. The fire mission that resulted in civilian deaths targeted key military personnel billeted nearby, there was a malfunction of the equipment on HMS Alacrity that meant two shells went astray and the mission was aborted. Friendly fire is a well known phrase and accurately sums up what happened, I don't see the need to add the detail you seem to want to and certainly not whilst omitting key information. The Argentine civilian dead include several killd at sea on the Narwal, ARA Belgrano and Islas del Los Estados, they are included in the total, there is no need to double account for this. WCMemail 11:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, but shouldn't the infobox say 19 civilians dead then, including both british and argentine? I see no double accounting except possibly on the casualties section, and that honestly isn't a big problem. Seems unreasonable to omit it from the infobox. 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Nope because there were also civilian deaths on the British side but they like the Argentines were taking an active part in hostilities. WCMemail 10:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand. If they are civilians they should be listed with the British civilians in the infobox, regardless of actions they took. If you don't consider them really civilians, and actually combatants of some sort, better words should be used to describe them in the casualty section. (And a source should be provided too) 2601:85:C101:BA30:79AE:F057:F966:38F8 (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
There were only 3 non-combatant deaths, all Falkland Islanders. We don't break down casualties in the inbox and I see no good reason supplied for doing so. WCMemail 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikpedia states under the "On This Day" heading that Argentine foces in Stanley conditionally surrendered to British forces.I do not recall any conditions reported as being attached to their surrender. Is my memory faulty?Taylormc52 (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Taylormc52 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
As a military term, there don't have to be actual conditions as such. See the articles Unconditional surrender and Surrender. According to Argentine surrender in the Falklands War the terms were changed to remove "unconditional", as that has connotations that I imagine were unpleasant to them - presumably worse than having to surrender in the first place of course. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It was General Moore's preference to make it just a surrender, not an unconditional surrender. The word 'unconditional' was inserted in the original document because London wanted it to be there. When Menendez objected, as expected, Moore removed the word 'unconditional'. An example of a condition of surrender was that the Argentine forces would stay under the command of Argentine officers. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
British honours for services in the Falklands War
How was the honouring of British soldiers who had distinguished themselves during the Falklands War carried out? I first thought that their names might feature in the 1983 New Year Honours (they don't), then that perhaps there might have been a special "Falklands Honours List" (there wasn't). Can another knowable author enlighten me on the honours process after the conflict, please? Adelshaus (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelshaus (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Excellent contemporary UK MoD Documentary
There's an excellent UK MoD documentary, The Falklands War – The Land Battle, narrated by Richard Todd, on YouTube here: [5] - other parts are at right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Civilians
Was there any kind of resistance to the takeover by civilians? In a quick skim of the article, I don't see anything.
Yes, a number of islanders assisted British forces, some sabotaged Argentine equipment, one fought with 3 Para at Longdon. WCMemail 11:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Might be worth adding something about it if you have a reference handy.
Simon Adler, can you clarify your rationale behind this edit please? If you agree that "[t]his is the english WP. All readers will know the different designations for the islands", why did you reinstate the Argentinian name - especially when we don't do it anywhere else in the article? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
As has been done by a colleague. It is in the UN text. Regards Simon Adler (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
As of 2007?
[6] Do we really need to qualify this statement? It's not like Argentina has shown any tendency to drop it's national obsession with the Falklands. WCMemail 09:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree, sentence has been edited. Farawayman (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Decisive British Victory
[7] It's been added again, I've already reverted today, if someone else could do the honours. WCMemail 13:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
[8] and this as well, edit warred back in after being removed. WCMemail 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I honestly don't see your issue with having the length of the conflict in the infobox. It is like on World War I. And I'm not editwarring, you just gave no reason for removal, besides "inappropriate." 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, you have to give justification for inclusion as well, and "It is like on World War I" is simply a claim of WP:OTHERSTUFF so you need a better argument. My rebuttal would be that the Falklands conflict and WW1 are on different scales - the Falklands was little more than a skirmish in comparison to global conflict, and as the timeline was so much shorter I don't think it necessary to pin it down so explicitly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
My counter is that because it is so short, it should be pinned down. Long wars, we may agree, don't need to be down to the specific days, but short wars like the Cenepa War and this one, it is important IMO to have the length. It really doesn't hurt to add a specification that conforms with many other infoboxes on Wikipedia. 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have a fairly neutral view on this. There is no doubt that the speed of the British response to get there and get the job done, without unnecessary detraction and prevarication, was a notable feature of this war, but whether it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox is I think, a mute point. I do not think its inclusion does any harm but on the other hand I think infobox detail should be kept as brief as possible. The Cenepa War article is a good example of an infobox crammed full of clutter. Another minor point is the lack of a precise start date. Even though I accept 2 April is usually used, we could make cases for other dates being the start date. To the IP: why not get a user name? Your edits will carry more weight if you do. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6; What does hurt is you edit warring to try to force it in [9][10][11]. You've been warned about your edit warring on your talk page. That last one came after the warning on your talk page, and you're not heeding the warning. This needs to stop. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have done a total of 3 edits on this article, so I Think I am ok to call myself neutral. Having just the dates is fine; having the months, weeks and days is unnecessary Ilenart626 (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Disagree with the addition per rationale supplied by Chaheel Riens, I would written pretty much the same. The edit warring is not cool. WCMemail 10:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Like I responded to a relevant note on my talk page, it is my opinion that the description "a 10-week undeclared war" and the infobox entry "Date: 2 April – 14 June 1982" suffice. Apcbg (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I cannot have an account on Wikipedia for personal reasons, to clear up any confusion. My IP is unfortunately dynamic as well. 2601:85:C101:BA30:79AE:F057:F966:38F8 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Consensus?
I see no consensus to remove 'decisive', neither do I see any clearly expressed rationale for doing so. Whey is it being removed?
You have already been pointed at WP:MILMOS, which is entirely clear on this point. If you have any issue with that, the place to change it would be there, not here. You would, however, be well advised to first review the discussions that led to the adoption of the current advice in MILMOS. Kahastoktalk 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to add, the British official history stresses that the war wasn't actually decisive as Argentina continued to maintain its claim over the Falklands and the British were required to maintain a very substantial force there (which continues to this day). Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the MILMOS consensus, I have always been a little puzzled at the effort some people put into calling this war a decisive victory. A roughly only 2.5/1 casualty ratio; a very large tonnage loss of shipping incl 4 warships; a massive expense; a conditional surrender; and a position now that some would say has left the UK in a worse position than before the war. Is that a decisive victory? Or is decisive referring to the resurgence in UK national pride, or the overthrow of the Argentine govt the victory caused? The point is the word decisive is open to interpretation, making it unsuitable for use in the infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, Argentina is no longer present in occupation on the Falklands, and they aren't likely to try anything like that again, are they. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.22 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Bad link - goes to spam
Reference 68 "British Special Air Service SAS – The Falklands – Operation Corporate". Retrieved 2 October 2014.
Sorry if this isn't the place to report - not a regular wiki editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:371E:E700:59EF:EA6:F82F:B1AD (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I have changed the main link to web archive version. (Hohum@) 21:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
.. and set the original url as unfit, so it can't be clicked on. Also, thank you for reporting the issue. (Hohum@) 21:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Discrepency in Reported Injured
In the page header under casualties and losses, Argentinian wounded is reported as "1,657", British losses as "775".
In the "Casualties" section, the final line says "There were 1,188 Argentine and 777 British injured or wounded." (no citation), in conflict with the originally reported numbers. --2A02:C7F:18A2:E300:F582:CD90:B017:9812 (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
French duplicity or anti french bias ?
I think the reference used to show a so call "french duplicity" (46) isn't clear enough to be verifiable and credible. It seems to be more an anti-french bias than other think. Rogarbos (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems clear enough to me after I tracked down the full citation and quote. I fixed the sourcing and re-worded the question. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
There was no "french duplicity" (sic) Dassault is a private French company and the French State had no power to order French citizens outside of France to do anything. A presumably well-educated man such as John Nott should have been aware of this fact.
Dassualt had pre-existing contracts with Argentina to supply Exocet and its personnel within Argentina were vulnerable to Argentinian Government pressure if such arrangements were unilaterally withdrawn.
The whole conflict could have been easily avoided if Britain had had a decent Defence Minister, instead of a man who couldn't even do nothing, well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.22 (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I Know but that falklands islands that should be our territory, but i think it is still our land to get some people die in — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCoolUnknownGuy (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Not clear
It is not clear how the three Falklands women were killed accidentally by British troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.119.235 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Brief details now added with ref. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
"Treated Correctly"
I've tagged the new section recently added for POV. Whilst there are texts that state the civilian population were not ill-treated, the behaviour of Argentine forces left a lot to be desired and in many cases violated the Geneva Convention. This included booby-traps in civilian homes (some of which targeted children), the defilement of homes with excrement, the mock executions and the destruction of civilian property (eg the arson of the historic Globe Store). I wonder if this section is perhaps warranted at all, since if we were to cover the subject with enough material to be neutral it might perhaps unbalance the article. WCMemail 16:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Wee Curry Monster, I take your point to an extent, but I was making an effort to be both concise and neutral. My point of reference was:
By and large Argentine forces behaved properly towards the islanders. {Freedman 2005 (Vol. II), p. 87) [12] - NB: this is the official British war history.
I thought it would be wrong to put in too much detail and I have provided a link to our Occupation of the Falkland Islands where that properly belongs. I also thought it would be wrong not to mention the occupation at all. I did consider including mock execution; the only example I came across was the testimony of Bill Luxton who was subsequently deported. On balance, I thought it better not to, but feel free to add it yourself. Alansplodge (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the tags and copy edited to add some material. I've not added cites yet but I have the book to hand - let me know what you think. PS it was not my intention to accuse you of anything, merely drawing you intention to my concerns. I have a fairly extensive library of books on the conflict and I'm always happy to help. WCMemail 12:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'm fine with your edits, but we will need citations as soon as you have the opportunity. Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
Ok. Here were have the pro-British point of view getting preference again. Apparently it was wrong to have text that put the Argentine reoccupation in good light. Sietecolores (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
References to add, google book server is down [13],[14],[15]. WCMemail 18:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Alansplodge: I've added some references, in one case I wanted to refer to Appendix 1 which has a list of fires started, do you have any suggestions ref the citation template? I've tried to keep in line with the suggestion at the top of the page to keep citations to a consistent style. WCMemail 16:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Wee Curry Monster, not an expert but I would put "Appendix I" in place of the page number if one is not available. Alansplodge (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
National Reorganization Process / Argentina
Normally I strictly follow WP:BRD but I think this case warrants an exception. Some time ago this edit [16] changed the infobox quite subtly. The wlink changed from Argentina to National Reorganization Process, introduced with the misleading edit summary that is was adding a cite. On the face of it the page looked the same, I missed it and it seems a lot of others have missed it too.
There is a POV excuse in Argentina that excuses the war, with the phrase it was the junta not Argentina, which this edit reflects. Given the invasion evoked wild celebrations in Argentina, its clear there was widespread support for the war; ie it wasn't just the junta. The editor responsible was a serial sockpuppeteer User:Alexiod Palaiologos, responsible for a lot of POV editing before his block.
In any case, it is simply incorrect, the guidance for the template [17] states:
“
This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding.
”
The wlink added is none of these. WCMemail 08:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Not going to start an edit war. I don't care enough. But @Hohum:, the tag says the citation style is unclear (which would be an issue with verifiability), not that it's inconsistent (which is just housekeeping). How is anyone supposed to do anything about the issue if the tag doesn't even explain what the problem is? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It was supposed to signify a house keeping task was required. WCMemail 16:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It specifically says "The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation and footnoting." (my emphasis). (Hohum@) 17:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
As I go through the current content, I'm left wondering why this is not still a featured article. I saw in your edit note the issue that "both long and short styles are used" regarding citations. It looks like most citations are of the long form, of which I understand to be the CS1/CS2 citation style. Many appear to still be of the short footnote style. Of citations in that shortened style, I am finding the following:
<ref>Middlebrook 2012, p. 40</ref>
{{Sfn|Barbé|1994|...}} (3)
<ref>The best trained units of the Argentine army...</ref>
<ref>"infiltrated on board, pretending to be scientists...</ref>
<ref>Land that Lost Its Heroes...</ref>
<ref>{{harvnb|...}}</ref> (38)
The parenthesized number shows how many occurrences found. There are probably more, but I figured this was a good start. Ender and Peter 20:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
"Malvinas War"
I see that we have another editor trying to edit war "Malvinas War" as an "English" term prominently into the lede. Refer to the archives, its been a while but the long established consensus is that we don't include that term because it's a fringe term usually used by those with a POV agenda. Wikipedia doesn't give WP:FRINGE views WP:UNDUE prominence. WCMemail 08:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Greetings WCM. Your reversion of both my edit and Hohum's requires a better explanation given it is incumbent on leaders to avoid conflict if at all possible. Having been at RNAS Yeovil at the time I know the pilots and their families were not enthusiastic even though they knew it was their duty. Readers are entitled to know what effective steps were taken. FWIW whilst I don't often get reverted, the agreed article is better. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:BRD suggests that you should await the outcome of a discussion before replacing your edit, I seriously dislike it when people feel entitled to edit war their edit back into an article before any discussion. Operation Journeyman has only tangential relevance to the Falklands War, I personally consider its deterrent effect as overblown and it was a reaction to the Argentine incursion on Southern Thule not any direct threat to the Falklands. As something of tangential relevance and somewhat over exaggerated I oppose the addition as superfluous. WCMemail 13:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
PS I'm not going to template the regulars but you make take my reply as drawing your attention to edit warring. WCMemail 13:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
My edit was cleanup, and closer matching what was actually said in the source. However, a couple of sentences on Operation Journeyman doesn't seem unreasonable, but a better source for the conclusion that it actually averted an invasion at the time is probably required if that is going to be included. (Hohum@) 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Formal apologies re reversion WCM, I should have waited but have only just restarted editing after a prolonged gap due to neck pain. I still think Journeyman deserves a mention. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree but would be willing to compromise that perhaps a sentence or two is relevant. I don't believe it deserves it's own section and I agree with Hohum that credit for preventing an Argentine invasion needs a much better source. I would have more faith in your apology had you self-reverted as a gesture of good faith. WCMemail 17:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree the operation should have a mention, but it didn't stop the occupation of Southern Thule. The claim that it prevented an invasion of the Falklands seems a bit far-fetched to me. Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
For clarity, the text proposed was:
1977 invasion averted
In 1977, British prime minister James Callaghan secretly sent the submarine HMS Dreadnought, two frigates, and support vessels to deal with a landing on South Thule. The captain was ordered to avoid bloodshed at all costs and the mission was kept secret for 25 years. The action is credited with deterring an invasion at the time.[1]
Seems to be the place for any mention would be between the two paragraphs of the Failed Diplomacy section (possibly at the end of the first paragraph), since this the whole thing is broadly chronological. In the version that went into the article, 1977 came after 1980. Kahastoktalk 18:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I still think the reference is somewhat overblown, the extraordinary claim that it prevented an invasion in 1977 needs much better sourcing. There has been no evidence that any invasion was planned. However, if we can get a compromise proposal on the wording I would accept a compromise of a brief mention. WCMemail 12:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The claim that the operation was kept secret for 25 years is nonsense, it gets a mention in Eddy, Paul; Gillman, Peter; Linklater, Magnus; Sunday Times of London Insight Team (1982). The Falklands War. Sphere Books. ISBN978-0-7221-8282-6., page 51, which was published five years after the event. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I can remember it being discussed in 1982, at the time it was suggested it was a precaution to deter an invasion. I've never seen any suggestion it actually stopped an invasion. WCMemail 12:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Suggested addition:
In 1977, British prime minister James Callaghan, in response to heightened tensions in the region, secretly sent a force of two frigates and a nuclear-powered submarine, HMS Dreadnought, to the South Atlantic, codenamed Operation Journeyman.[1] It is unclear whether the Argentinians were aware of their presence, but British sources state that they were advised through informal channels. Nevertheless, talks with Argentina on Falklands sovereignty and economic cooperation opened in December of that year, but were inconclusive.[2]
A friend mentioned to me that because this war was nether declared, this article should instead be titled "Falklands Conflict". I wasn't able to find any Wikipedia:* or any prior precedent by google search.
So is there any prior precedent that I can't find and Should this article be renamed? CoderThomasB (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME applies. Doing a Google search for "Falklands War" returns 2.1 million hits. The same for "Falklands Conflict" returns 164,000 hits. Searching strictly in news, I get 42,300 and 7,350 respectively. I think the common name is Falklands War, even if neither nation declared war. I'm not really sure when was the last time a nation actually declared war against another nation. I don't think countries really do it anymore. Still, we have wars anyway, as present situations show. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this proposal has come up at least five times before:
None of the discussions have ever achieved consensus to rename the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed; our declaration of war article says: "Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and the use of force in international conflicts, have made declarations of war largely obsolete in international relations". Alansplodge (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Removal of sources
Cites relating to Globalsecurity.org are being removed citing WP:GLOBALSECURITY as a reason. Reading the WP:RSN archives [19] funnily enough it doesn't come up as being regarded as generally unreliable until this poorly supported RFC [20]. So it seems the usual suspects are now removing cites and replacing with a {{cn}} tag as they simply can't be arsed to do the hard work. Looking at the cite [21] its a reliable source having been published at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College. I would always suggest that sources are evaluated individually and the application of blanket bans without consideration of individual sources is wasteful of useful editing time. I am nontheless aware that common sense as a principle has been surgically removed from some individuals who will continue to edit war to remove sources with endless energy (but never applying that energy to find replacement sources themselves, which they regard as someone else's problem), will bring in like minded individuals and it will end up in a pointless and ultimately futile discussion at one of the drama boards where content creators are considered the problem not the people busy making stupid guidelines that they then enforce as inviolable rules.
So I guess my suggestion is would anyone be able to cite the original paper as published, do we fancy tilting at windmills, looking for alternate sources or just giving up on editing as the joy is sucked from content creation? WCMemail 13:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Some suggestions I found online [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Appears the original papers may not be available online. WCMemail 13:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm seeing very little information on cultural impact. This was influenced Argentina a lot, so there should have been much more on the summary of this topic. Can I add about the World Cup and how the war was referenced by the Argentine fans? It's not going to chance anything for anyone, it just highlights how massive the was entered Argentina culture. Recent king12 (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe this belongs in the article at all. Particularly as it was first edited, it is essentially trivia and as such discouraged. We do have a dedicated article on the cultural impact and it may be suitable there. WCMemail
As per WCM, this is just more of the same old Argentinian bluster, and is trivia in the most literal sense. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
This is here is trivia or not: "The words yomp and Exocet entered the British vernacular as a result of the war."
What's the point of cultural impact if you're not going to add nothing other than some words that entered British vernacular, which is also trivia. Recent king12 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree it's trivia, leave it out. Also cultural impacts are subjective Lyndaship (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
And this is not trivia: "The words yomp and Exocet entered the British vernacular as a result of the war."
What's the point of cultural impact if you're not going to add nothing other than some words that entered British vernacular, which is also trivia. Recent king12 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree that it's too trivial and tangential to mention a song that has a passing reference to the conflict here. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
What about this: "The words yomp and Exocet entered the British vernacular as a result of the war."
We must remove, then. It's too trivial too. Recent king12 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're a new editor, but you're falling into WP:BLUDGEON territory here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Recent king 12 it is obvious that there is no consensus to remove materials that you intend to remove. Please stop. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact) 16:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
It should be noted that the "Yomp & Exocet" statement is uncited, both here and in the parent article, and there is also no source for the statement about English-language music being banned in Argentina - without sources, the content shouldn't be in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Nigel Ish, not strictly true - it can be marked as {{cn}} until a source is found. General etiquette says that a month from request is a good time to wait before removal is warranted. Long-standing material, unless obviously contentious, is generally marked as needing citations and brand new material is more likely to be removed. Also, (as Recent king 12 has found out,) how you go about discussing sourced material is important, and more - or less - likely to garner support. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
"Strength" is a highly subjective term, open to interpretation, and would be very difficult to ascertain. As a start, are you referring to current strength, or strength at the time of the conflict? I suppose you could start with Royal Navy and Argentine Navy. both of which list fleets, etc. But also bear in mind that fleet size (for example) means nothing without skill, and it's widely recognised that the UK forces had a much higher level of skill and training than those of the Argentine forces.
So it's a tricky one, and probably why it's not in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Fuse or fuze
For clarity...
1. The rule for spelling in the British Armed Services in 1986 was to use the first spelling that appeared in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. The current rule is given in paragraph 3.2 of the DCDC Writers' Handbook--
Although publication layouts will change depending on the type of publication, the content should be recognisable as a DCDC product. The list is not exhaustive. As a general rule we will use first use in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary for guidance where it is not included here. The only obvious deviation we make is using ‘-ise’ rather than ‘-ize’ at the end of words, even if it not first use. NATOTerm is also a useful resource for conventions of military terms. If you have any questions, see DCDC’s editors.
2. The ninth edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, published 1995, (which I currently have in front of me) gives the first spelling of fuze/fuse as "fuse" and defines fuse as inter alia "a component of a shell, mine etc. designed to detonate an explosive charge on impact, after an interval or when subjected to a magnetic or vibratory stimulation".
3. "Fuze" is defined as a variant of "fuse" and appears after "fuse".
4. I do not know when Air Marshall Craig made his remark about "Six better fuses" but suppose it to be closer to 1982 than the 2007 or 2010 - which are the dates of the references to the remark. He retired in 1991. The relevant edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary during when he might have said it is therefore the sixth (unlikely, published 1982) seventh or eighth. Notwithstanding the spelling that may appear in the current edition of the OED he would have been required to use the spelling "fuse" which means it is correctly spelt in the "Six better fuses" remark, assuming that the ninth edition correctly reflects the sixth, seventh or eighth editions.
6. When using contemporary spelling, Wikipedia does not use "sic" for every word spelt otherwise than in accordance with modern spelling - except when the word has been clearly misspelled even by the contemporary standard.
7. In the premises, I have removed the the word, "sic" from the "Six better fuses" remark as it is correctly spelt.
8. I do not have access to the latest edition of the Concise OED so cannot tell whether the 3 other uses of the word fuze/fuse in this article are correctly spelled and so will not change them. However, you will note the DCDC Writers' Handbook points on correct current English spelling.
9. Regarding the 1986 rule, it was matter of some dismay to fellow service members to be required to follow, as they saw it, American spellings - as this is how "-ize" rather than "-ise" was seen at the time. It was also a matter of some confusion that the editors of the OED did not seem to know their alphabet.
I was always taught that fuze refers to the devices that causes bombs, shells and grenades to go bang, a fuse you'll find in a 3 pin plug. Its not an Americanism. If you also do your research, the current "American" spelling was the original "British" spelling, its the British that changed it later to make printing easier (the z was not common in printing presses whereas the s was. WCMemail 14:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
To add for other editors presuming it to be an Americanism, see Talk:Fuze as this is constantly being raised by editors with a non-technical background.
A fuse is an electrical component used in circuits to prevent electrical overload. See Fuse (electrical).
A fuse is also a saltpetre soaked length of cord used to initiate gunpowder as a burning match. See Fuse (explosives)
A fuze is a mechanical/electromechanical/electrical device used to initiate the explosives in a bomb, rocket, missile, shell or hand grenade. See Fuze.
They sound the same, they're very different things. Note also the IP who changed this, changed the wlink from Fuze to Fuse (explosives), I'm pretty sure the Argentines weren't lobbing cannonballs from their fast jets, with manually lit slow burning matches. WCMemail 14:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster, that contradicts Oxford Dictionaries' definition of 'fuse' though, they say:
fuse2
(North American English also fuze)
NOUN
1 A length of material along which a small flame moves to explode a bomb or firework, meanwhile allowing time for those who light it to move to a safe distance:a bomb on a short fuse
1.1 A device in a bomb that controls the timing of the explosion.
VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
Fit a fuse to (a bomb, shell, or mine): 'the bomb was fused to go off during a charity performance'
Who is the authority on spellings in British English? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I've already referred you to the relevant prior discussions on wikipedia, which includes relevant sources to confirm what I've said. I've also directed you to links that explain it. Technically Fuze is correct but many publications confuse it with Fuse. I'd rather do our readers the service of using the correct term and not linking it to the article on cannonballs/fireworks, which is what the IP editor did. If you wish to continue a pointless argument, Talk:Fuze is the place to go, though I'd imagine re-opening this topic will not be received with enthusiasm. WCMemail 16:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
NPOV article added to External links
[35] I know this English article has a lot of UK centred opinion and bravado in it, but there is IMO also a lot of reasonably neutral stuff. This Ext link tries to be balanced about the respective balance on this and the spanish article, but I think it misses the point often. NPOV doesn't mean giving equal weight to someone else's opinion. The writer is often not questioning the unambiguous facts. Eg, 'surrender' v 'agreed cessation of hostilities' - can these be called two interpretations of the same thing that deserve equal weight? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't be inclined to add that article, the author clearly has no idea what NPOV means, ironically their clearly Argentine sympathies shine through. Just my 2c. WCMemail 14:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Let's see what others think. I'm neutral either way. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'll remove it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Lucy Beck claims over civilian deaths
I've removed this information as there seems to be very little sourcing or verification for it. By the inserting editors own admission it's only available via the wayback machine, and as a single source at that. Unless better sourcing can be found - which I would be completely fine with - I don't think it yet meets notability - or reliability - to stay.
ULIFOX 3XX's edit summary suggests that they feel strongly about this, and as such may fall into the WP:Advocacy territory? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
You beat me to it by a few seconds yesterday, deleting ULIFOX 3XX 's addition. The citation's author seemed to be an amateur blogger, hence not a RSS, hence delete it. Also, the names of the three victims is not notable enough to mention. Also, the change, which admittedly did not include the names, was not an improvement. And, there should not be citations in the infobox - that detail, if used, should be in the main article. The only possible change I think could have been made was inserting 'friendly fire', but I still think it is better the way it is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Lucy Beck is right
Lucy Beck has seen and mentioned that they sent Ms.'Carol' (Thatcher's Daughter) to Falklands Islands and interviewed a woman who explained how the victims died. They say it was a mistake in the British naval bombardment of Stanley. The names of the victims are remembered in the Falklands Memorial Chapel in Pangbourne and on the Liberation Monument in front of the Secretariat in Stanley, so it is true. I only look for the absolute truth of the events in the Falklands War, I don't care if they are Argentine or British, just the truth. I hope you can put in the Wikidata that the 3 civilians who died were due to a mistaken bombing of a British ship, that is the only thing I ask of you. Thank you very much for reading the message. @Chaheel Riens @Roger 8 Roger I hope you can accept my proposal ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@ULIFOX 3XX, the information about the three civilian women killed, including their names and the cause, is already covered in the article at Falklands War#Civilians. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@ULIFOX, It doesn't really matter if something is true. What is important is that it is mentioned in reliable secondary sources. See wp:RSS. The wp:IBX is only to summarise in the most basic detail information in the article below. These people and what happened is mentioned and sourced in the article which is fine. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Resolved
