Talk:Falklands War

Falklands Conflict, not Falklands War.

War was never actually declared: technically, there was no "Falklands War". The term seems to have lapsed into the vernacular in the intervening years since the conflict; it should more correctly be referred to as the "Falklands Conflict". Alexibrow (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article title per WP:CommonName, "Conflict" mentioned in lede. What more could one want? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A formal declaration of war is not a requisite for the existence of a war. If I remember correctly, the Vietnam War was never declared, either. "War" is better here than "conflict", to set apart the article about the long and ongoing sovereignty conflict (detailed somewhere else) and this article, which is specifically about the 1982 armed conflict Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before example. There is an option to search the talk pages archives at the top of this page. (Hohum ^@) 15:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves me right, there are plenty of wars which were never declared.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What value is served by "(Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas or Guerra del Atlántico Sur"? I can see that adding (aka South Atlantic War) [1] would help readers. This is the English language Wikipedia, and anyone searching Wikipedia for Malvinas rather than Falklands will easily find this article already Malvinas_Islands--Flexdream (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of convention we provide both the English and Spanish language names. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. Do you think it would help to also add 'South Atlantic War' as I've come across that term being used. --Flexdream (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not come across that one myself, you have to balance WP:DUE coverage of what may be a WP:FRINGE term. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Before the British attacked the Falklands, the British and Argentine governments..."

How is that neutral? The Argentinian forces invaded the Falklands, and the British launched a counter-invasion: "attacking" on the British behalf doesn't come into it. --90.220.162.146 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Argentine couter-attack plans

According to D. J. Thorp's book published in 2011, there is limited evidence, mostly based on radio signals interception and captured documents, that the Argentine forces on West Island planned a counter attack against the remaining British forces at San Carlos Bay for June 15. This, of course, was cancelled due to the ceasefire on June 14. (Thorp, D.J. The Silent Listener - British electronic surveillance, Falklands 1982, Spellmount, 2011, pages 145-148, 182-183. Template:ISBN-13) SV1XV (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I find that difficult to believe as they had no ships and no helicopters by that time. How did they plan to get across Falklands Sound? Swim? And in full view of the Royal Navy, without naval or air support. Mmmm, sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - West Falkland would have been under surveillance, and any evidence of forces gathering for a counter-attack would have been published well before now. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this source (p. 146), the Argentinians had salvaged and repaired one of their ships. The author does not give evidence about the name of the ship but he "strongly suspects" that it could be the ARA Bahia Buen Suceso. I am also unwilling to believe this story as well, so I prefer to discuss it on the talk page. SV1XV (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I like this bit in the about the author section - He personally briefed Col. Mike Smith VC (contrary to standing orders) before the battle of Goose Green. - So who is this unknown VC recipient Col Mike Smith. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In his book (chapter 10, "The battle for Goose Green", p.116), Thorp states that he briefed Lt. Colonel H Jones, of 2 Para, who is subsequently called "Colonel H". SV1XV (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well thats BS for a start, Colonel H did not get any of the SIGINT available as part of his planning. One of the lessons of Goose Green was sharing of SIGINT with land forces in the Falklands. Also the ARA Bahia Buen Suceso was disabled by Harrier attack and subsequently grounded after breaking loose in a storm. A useless hulk she was towed out to sea and used for gunnery practise. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Both accounts (planned counter-attack and briefing of Colonel H) are supported by weak and limited evidence, but they cannot be easily disproved. Obviously Thorp was very careful when he chose the material for his book. SV1XV (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher should be in the Commanders and Leaders section. She made many decisions in the war, the biggest decision was probaly the sinking of the belgrano. (Epdavies100 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

No, because she was not a military commander. For information, Thatcher did not personally order the sinking of the Belgrano, the war cabinet approved a change in the rules of engagement that permitted the attack to take place. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It says commanders and leaders, which includes the military's civilian overseers, not just "military commanders," i.e., persons of military rank with operational or field command of forces. The war cabinet itself includes the Prime Minister -- who was Thatcher in the case of the Falklands War. She was therefore a "leader" of the war effort. The World War I entry lists two British Prime Ministers as "leaders" (Asquith and Lloyd George) and the Second World War entry lists Churchill, none of whom were "military commanders" at the onset of war. Churchill's military service was long past by the start of World War II (he retained a ceremonial role in his former regiment as patron -- titularly Colonel-in-Chief -- but that role was a non-operational one and held, in many cases, by patrons of non-military background). The position of First Lord of the Admiralty is also typically held by civilians and was in any case relinquished when Churchill became Prime Minister. Moreover, the British Armed Forces entry states that, "[c]onsistent with longstanding constitutional convention . . . the Prime Minister holds de facto authority over the armed forces." So Thatcher did have personal authority to make decisions during the war, although in practice she probably did so in consultation with her cabinet. One need not be a flag officer in order to be a "leader" of the armed forces under the British constitutional order. "It is commonly accepted that the [royal] prerogative's [armed forces] deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise and is not statutorily bound to consult others." Thus, it's fair to say that Thatcher should be included in the commanders and leaders section of this article. 220.255.1.77 (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Its difficult to know how to respond to you as your IP address is hopping all over the place. I take it you're familiar with wikipedia as you have knowledge of syntax and the use of the talk page. The section in question is for military leaders, not civilian Government. Per this convention we do not include the civilian Government. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You may begin by addressing the substantive points raised, rather than expressing puzzlement about IP addresses. The section in question says "commanders and leaders." It does not say that it is only "for military leaders." There is no convention that civilian government be excluded, or Churchill would be excluded (are you denying that Churchill was a war leader?), as would Roosevelt, since the Commander-in-Chiefship is "[u]nquestionably" a "civilian office." That there is no such convention is clear: the leading article on World War II includes both Churchill and Roosevelt. The principle of civilian political leadership having supreme authority over the armed forces is a venerable constitutional principle, based on longstanding convention and practice on both sides of the Atlantic. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 751 (1974) ("The military establishment is subject to the control of the civilian Commander in Chief and the civilian departmental heads under him"); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 325 (1946) (Murphy, J., concurring) ("supremacy of the civil over the military is one of our great heritages."); James Wither, Civil-Military Relations in the United Kingdom: Tradition, Continuity, and Change, in Callaghan & Kernic (eds.), Armed Forces and International Security: Global Trends and Issues 73 (2003) ("Since the Bill of Rights of 1689 . . . Britain's armed forces have been subject to civilian control and the rule of law."). There is no convention -- whether internally on Wikipedia or in Anglo-American law -- that the armed forces are not subordinate to civilian-political leadership. Since the convention you're relying on does not exist, Thatcher stays. 220.255.1.88 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I did respond to your substantive point, the point is that the civilian Government did not control the campaign and Thatcher was not a "war leader" as you suggest. The conduct of the military campaign was left to the military commanders with broad directives from the War Cabinet. That the armed forces are subordinate to civilian Government does not change the substantive point. BTW it is desirable to convince people to accept your proposed change via WP:BRD, edit warring and statements like you just made are counter productive. See WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You did not. It's "points" in the plural. And you're incorrect: the Prime Minister as head of the war cabinet has control over the war. This is so even if he leads by directive and delegates operational decisions to those in the field:

1. "Britain's armed forces [are] subject to civilian control and the rule of law." See Wither.
2. The Prime Minister controls the decision to deploy. "It is commonly accepted that" the Prime Minister "has personal discretion in [the] exercise" of the "deployment power," which is "the ultimate power to send forces to war." See the Select Committee.

The evidence is plain. Even if we ignore the civilian leadership's power to control the rules of engagement -- itself an operational change -- the sources still state that they have "control," so your claim that they did not is false.

Nor have you provided any support for your assertion that there is a convention against listing civilians as war leaders. The World War II article clearly lists civilian leadership, contrary to your "convention." The template guidelines do not specify military leaders to the exclusion of civilian leadership. Rather, "prominent or notable leaders should be listed," without regard as to whether they were military or civilian (and indeed, without regard to the type of control they exercised). That approach has the virtue of permitting Churchill to be listed as a war leader.

As far as I can tell, you provide no sources and no basis for your contentions (I have provided several sources to the contrary). There's no basis for your "convention" beyond a citation to an archived discussion that produced no consensus and contained only unsourced assertions. 220.255.1.86 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I have to say I agree with IP. While it remains true that "Thatcher did not personally order the sinking of the Belgrano", she was part of the war cabinet that purposely made that possible. In fact, she was a prominent member of that cabinet. Template:Infobox_military_conflict states that "For battles, this should include military commanders (...). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed".

As noted by IP contributor, WWI and WWII articles illustrate this point, as well as Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), Gulf War (note John Major), Iran–Iraq War, 1948 Arab–Israeli War, etc, etc. They all list political leaders; that's why the section also says "and leaders". We are treating this article as an article about a battle, when we should be following the standards of that of a war.

I believe it's relevant to note that until 2007 Thatcher was listed as a commander, but in February 2010 she was removed. --Langus (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also agree she should be in there. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Theres a surprise. No you're wrong Cabinet Government is about collective decision making, it is not about individual leadership. The War Cabinet set broad campaign goals, rules of engagement but it did not lead the military campaign. To put in Margaret Thatcher alone would mislead, she did not act alone as you would have us believe. So again, no I oppose this change to the current consensus. If you're going to insist on Margaret Thatcher then you should put in the whole War Cabinet. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because "for wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed". Maybe some of them qualify, maybe not. --Langus (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well as they were all Ministers of State that argument is fallacious, being senior members of the cabinet means they're both notable and prominent. And all had the same say, Britain has a Prime Minister not a President, decisions are made collectively not by decree. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He's not wrong. You are. He did not say that the Prime Minister acts alone (as you would have us believe), he said that the Prime Minister was a prominent member of the war cabinet. Which is true: the Prime Minister is "head of the War Cabinet." That's a "prominent" position, however you slice it: the duties of the office "as Prime Minister and head of the War Cabinet" include "close[ly] working" with "every aspect of the war and every branch of it in every theatre in which it is being fought." See Hansard, Central Direction of the War, 381 H.C. Deb. 224, 227 (5th ser. 1942), and it is "commonly accepted that the [royal] prerogative's deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise." This makes the Prime Minister both "prominent" and "notable" -- more so than his peers.

It's true that the war cabinet engages in collective decision making. But there's also room for individual leadership. Teams require teamwork but do not preclude leadership -- this is obvious to anyone who has played a team sport. More pertinently, it's largely immaterial whether the Prime Minister acts alone (or not): one can be "prominent" whether one acts alone or in concert with others. As Prime Minister and head of their respective war cabinets, Churchill, Lloyd George, and Thatcher were "prominent" and thus merit inclusion. 220.255.1.87 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm not keen on including politicians as leaders in the context of conflict, although to an extent that's because I don't like them getting ideas above their station.

Whilst politicians set direction that is then executed through the military chain of command with exceptions to the authority available to the military chain of command passed back to the politicians to allow them some scope for interference. AS already identified hey set the environment within which LOAC is constrained. The point of debate around the Belgrano is a usful illustration. Many ROEREQs will be approved within the military chain of command, but occasionally when a ROEREQ is likely to have a political repercussion beyond the military effect that is passed into the political sphere. Essentially LOAC and ROE are legal and politicians are neither qualified to comment or empowered to do so, a ROEREQ passed to the cabinet would already have been identified as "legal" by the LEGADs, the question being asked is "whilst this is legal, is it politically desirable".

Essentially politicians set political direction, they don't "command" operations.

Also, for what its worth, I'd be more open to including them in a total war situation, such as the WWII example, although I'm still not that keen. The Corporate situation was very firmly not in the same range.

ALR (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"I don't like them getting ideas above their station" is not a valid reason. The rest of what you say is unsourced assertion. The Attorney General was part of the Falklands War Cabinet and was consulted on the ROE and the imposition of the exclusion zone in his ministerial capacity. See Lawrence Freedman, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Vol. II: War and Diplomacy 22 (2005) ("The Attorney General . . . was also a regular as a result of the large number of legal matters that had to be addressed"). He was both qualified and empowered to do so. Your ruminations are incorrect. 220.255.1.90 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst you may not see it as a valid reason it is at least moderately amusing. Usefully when dealing with politicians and LegAds that helps to alleviate the general atmosphere of pomposity both species of vermin generate.

I'm still not convinced but it's clear that the majority opinion differs. That's fair enough, it's as arbitrary as any other decision around here.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take an order from a politician...

ALR (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with ALR's reasoning. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That reasoning has no basis in law or fact. Whereas "the chain of command within the police stops with the chief constable" and the government may not "give him or her instructions on the operational use of the police," "[t]his is not the case for the armed forces." A.W. Bradley & K.D. Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law 331 (2003). 220.255.1.90 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

full protection

I've fully protected it for the time being. Can we get some eyes from the military history wikiproject to comment? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say that both approaches above are theoretically suitable. In this case, it would make more sense to the reader to maintain the link to Margaret Thatcher in the section above in the infobox but not place her in the list on pragmatic grounds: she was clearly in a different role to other UK personnel, but we can't easily demonstrate that in the limited space. Basically, the IP above has a point that she qualifies to be in the list, but I don't believe it is useful to the reader to include her. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully concur with Grandiose's reasoning and conclusion. Apcbg (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with the opposite approach. It's completely unsourced and at odds with the approach taken in other war articles. Moreover, it's patently useful to know who the Argentine leader's opposite counterpart was. 220.255.1.89 (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a wider ranging discussion on the use of political leaders in war infoboxes to be had, but perhaps here isn't the best place to have it. In this particular circumstance though, I would agree that Maggie should be included in the infobox. This was a war rather than a battle, and the decision to send a task force to the Falklands in the first place was as much a political decision as it was military (if not more so). Added to this, the general format for wars is to include political leaders, as the IP editor has correctly pointed out. Finally, perhaps it's worth reminding everyone that infoboxes are supposed to summarise the article's content. Maggie's name appears five times in the article proper, more than any other name in the disputed field of the infobox. Admiral Fieldhouse on the other hand doesn't appear at all. One might ask the question then, what his role was in this conflict and why he's in the infobox, when the Prime Minister isn't? Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Margaret Thatcher should be listed as a leader Mztourist (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As Admiral Fieldhouse was CINCFLEET of Operation Corporate, I would very much object to his removal. The fact that Margaret Thatchers name appears in the article is not a good reason of itself to have her in the inbox. Prince Andrew gets a mention shall we put him in as well? The infobox is supposed to list military commanders and leaders, Margaret Thatcher was part of the War Cabinet, whose role was to defined objectives, rules of engagement etc. Further the War Cabinet was about collective leadership, we either put the full war cabinet in to be consistent or limit to military leaders. To pick only Margaret Thatcher is to imply she acted in a presidential fashion and thats misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what it implies. What it implies is that Thatcher acted in a prime ministerial fashion, as a prominent war leader. She was head of the war cabinet. Her inclusion is a reflection of her prominence. "War is an intensely prime ministerial activity." Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders since 1945 103 (2000). It's a "unique role," that is "define[d]" by "her responsibilities and powers during war." Id. In practice, the modern conduct of war is "the domain of a few people," and "in extreme cases can become the Prime Minister's war, as with . . . Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands." Nigel White, Democracy Goes to War: British Military Deployments under International Law 26 (2009). Thus the war cabinet has been described as a "commission with the Prime Minister as the dominating and directing force . . . supplemented by [a] system of delegation." Maurice Hankey, Government Control in War 41 (1945).

Historians have unambiguously described Thatcher as a "war leader." See, e.g., Hugh Rogers, Review of Battle of the Falklands by Max Hastings & Simon Jenkins, 71(2) Naval Review 163 (1983) ("She emerged as a remarkable war leader."); Christopher Collins, Margaret Thatcher, Churchill Archives Centre ("As a war leader, Thatcher proved impressive to the electorate"); Peter Byrd, British Defence Policy: Thatcher and Beyond 110 (1991) ("Thatcher was personally converted by the events of 1982 into a successful war leader."); Tom Buchanan, Europe's Troubled Peace: 1945-2000 203 (2006) ("the Falklands . . . elevated Thatcher from a mere politician to a successful war leader."); Duncan Watts, A Glossary of UK Government and Politics 262 (2007) ("Her role as war-leader enabled her to adopt the Churchillian mantle"). There is nothing misleading about this. Thatcher's role was to lead. To claim otherwise is to defy history.

What's misleading is your insistence that the infobox is reserved for military leaders to the exclusion of civilian leaders. Neither the template guidelines nor other war articles support that practice. 220.255.1.92 (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The template does say - the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed Thatcher as seen above was a notable leader. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You could drop the titles to create space for her addition, per World War I and others. I wouldn't be opposed. But I do think it's silly to argue over. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

So was the whole war cabinet, to single out Thatcher is incorrect. Why is everyone ignoring a basic point? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Because that point has been refuted ad nauseum. The whole war cabinet is not equally prominent. Only Thatcher is described as a war leader. Why are you ignoring this basic fact? 220.255.1.77 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that the only real reasoning (with several variations on the theme) for not including Maggie is her status as a political, rather than military leader. As there appears to be a broad consensus that political leaders are included in infoboxes for articles on wars (per the infobox talk page and other articles), I suggest that if anyone feels strongly about this matter, they take it up either at Template talk:Infobox military conflict or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. That way a consistent approach to the inclusion of political leaders in the infobox in all such articles can be decided. Here is not an appropriate venue to debate it.

PS. I’d have thought it was fairly obvious that I’m not advocating removing a Commander in Chief Fleet. Rather I’m pointing out a gaping void in the article’s content. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually no it wasn't obvious - text is not the best medium for conveying nuance. In passing may I ask why the point about cabinet Government is being ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You can ask, but I must point out that all I'm seeing on your part is selective attention when it comes to responding to the numerous points that are presented in favour of including Maggie. For what it's worth, your point about the War Cabinet is moot. Thatcher was the head of the country at the time of the conflict - that is the main logic behind including her. Similarly, the role of the war cabinet is not relevant to any other article - WWI or WWII. Besides, Thatcher formed and chaired the war cabinet. Getting tied down in the exact political dimensions of the cabinet's role is unnecessary. As I said, if you favour removing all political leaders from infoboxes, take it up on one of the other talk pages. Not here. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

True. And in any case Curry Monster is quite wrong about how the war cabinet works. 220.255.1.93 (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually no I did listen and address those points - I just don't agree. You mention "political leaders", so why only one? Mentioning only Thatcher implies a presidential style role that is not exactly true. I also note that there is a number of people who agreed with me that it wasn't appropriate to include Margaret Thatcher in case you missed that. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Only one because the Prime Minister's role is unique, and because she dominated the war cabinet. Because she's described as a war leader whereas the rest aren't. Because she's the head of the war cabinet, whereas the rest aren't. Because the power to deploy the armed forces is personally vested in her, and not others. It's a prime ministerial style role. What has 'presidential' got to do with anything? Silly red herring. 220.255.1.85 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't addressed the main point that several editors have pointed out - the existing consensus implied by the infobox talk page and on other articles. What you are suggesting will result in a fundamental change to the use of the infobox not only here, but at numerous other articles as well. This is not the appropriate place to discuss such a change, and I won't be discussing it any further here. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree, guidelines are not rules, they are open to interpretation not to mention the application of a little common sense. The world of infoboxes will not come crashing down because of how the guideline is applied here. Don't you think thats just a trifle exaggerated. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You pretended there was a convention that didn't exist. It's been proven since that the convention is actually the opposite. Now you're jettisoning the guidelines because the convention arising from those guidelines is at odds with your position. 220.255.1.77 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hiding behind an IP address to make snide remarks is pretty pathetic. Please grow up, we both know I said no such thing. Now if you can't make a constructive contribution to a discussion let the grown ups get on with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We both know you did. "Per this convention we do not include the civilian Government" was what you said. Denying it is craven and self-defeating. Your personal attacks are also unwarranted, especially as I have provided meticulous support for my claims (almost 20 sources!), and you have provided none. 220.255.1.69 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was mistaken about that guideline, you spotted a mistake I made. Well done, you can have a gold star for smugness. Feel better? However, preaching about personal attacks as you have indulged in them constantly is rather hypocritical though isn't it? You are of course welcome to have the last word. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you preached about personal attacks first. I didn't bring them up until you did. Nor have I indulged in them constantly. The timeline proves you engaged in personal attacks (15:03) and preached about them (20:43) long before I said they were unwarranted (22:47). 220.255.1.73 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As it happens no, you were being what we refer to as a WP:DICK, so earlier whilst irritated I made a remark that for me is uncharacteristic. That I regret and I really don't see the point of indulging in a tit for tat argument about who started it. M'kay? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. 220.255.1.92 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be clear by now that the majority opinion is for inclusion, and the point made about convention in other articles is reasonable, although I'll reserve opinion on whether it's possible to ever achieve a representative global policy given the range of political systems that the convention applies to.

To an extent I can also understand the perspective of including Thatcher as an individual. She's developed an almost mystical aura around her over the Falklands, even within the military people who should know better after everything else she did to emasculate the British Armed Forces. Add to that the majority of people not really appreciating the implications of Cabinet government with that represented in the form of the PM. That was exacerbated by Blair, but Thatcher went a fair way down that path herself.

There are a number of very different arguments that can be made than have been, most of them somewhat more persuasive than what's presented. The fact that nobody has made them doesn't change the majority view.

ALR (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely I made the point that to single Thatcher out as the sole leader is not entirely accurate. I would accept as a compromise including the War Cabinet but not just Thatcher herself. She did not make decisons alone. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I agree that it's not accurate, but it's what the majority seem to prefer and I can understand some of the thinking that leads to that conclusion.

ALR (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Re this revert, I think we can say that there is a consensus now, and the only ongoing discussion is on your part Wee Curry Monster. Looking above I see six editors supporting inclusion, two objecting and two who are largely indifferent (Grandoise and ALR - no offence guys). Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No we don't have a concensus, concensus is not a vote and I suggested a quite reasonable compromise. You have a majority and could edit war as a tag team to force a change if you like but that isn't the same thing now is it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it amounts to much the same thing. More editors support a certain change. How that is enforced is down to you I guess. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, concensus building should include considering all relevant viewpoints. A perfectly reasonable comment is being ignored here. And no WP:TAG is definitely not the same thing. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but I think you need to read wp:consensus again. A unanimous verdict is not required. Your viewpoint has been considered, and I'm afraid that most editors don't see this the way you do. Added to which, there is an existing consensus on the matter of inclusion. I don't see that there's much left to discuss. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say it was required to be unanimous? It does however require reasonable viewpoints to be considered. And deliberately ignoring a view or airily dismissing it is not considering it. And again above you avoid discussing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You are saying there is no consensus because you don't agree with it. I'm going to say this quite flatly and only once more; your viewpoint on the war cabinet is moot and irrelevant, per the consensus already established elsewhere. If you feel the exact intricacies of the British government should be reflected in the infobox, you need to discuss that at a more general forum, because it doesn't just affect this article. I'm all for open discussion on the subject, but not on an article by article basis. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Where did I say there was no concensus solely because I disagreed with it? Looking through the dicussion I can't find it. I only see you putting words in my mouth that were never there. More over it seems a determination not to consider a point by denigrating the editor who makes it.

I only see an argument from authority from you, which is basically there is a guideline and you seem to feel it must be slavishly followed to the letter of the law. So we treat an article on a War of National Survival in the same way in exactly the same way as a rather unusual conflict like the Falklands War. And we have a one size fits all description of what is a "War Leader", well Margaret Thatcher was no Winston Churchill. You're wrong it should be considered on an article by article basis, because one size does not fit all. Guidelines are just that, guidelines, they are not rules to be slavishly obeyed by fools and for the guidance of wise men. Slàinte mhath. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that consensus in Wikipedia is a fallacy in general, and where one is dealing with a binary decision then it's not something that can ever be delivered. There is no scope for a compromise solution in this instance. If the majority vote for something then live with it.

ALR (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But its not a binary decision, there are a range of options. To reduce it to a binary decision means no room to accommodate other viewpoints. Slàinte mhath. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record I found Langus' accusation of filibustering lacking in good faith and grossly offensive.

I've also added the War Cabinet who you will note are all notable political leaders. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

An edit I see no consensus for. Could you perhaps explain what your definition of consensus is, and why you think it hasn't been reached? I shall be most interested to hear it. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A concensus is ideally when there is general agreement among all participants and where it reflects all relevant viewpoints in the literature. And specifically where all relevant viewpoints are considered and weighed. What we had here was a editor with a history of edit warring, making a bad faith attack (ironic given his past history) of filibustering and imposing a solution before a concensus was agreed.

BTW where is the objection to putting in the War Cabinet? You simply ignored the point. So I made a WP:BOLD edit. An edit I am open to discussing if you feel it inappropriate to the point where we can both agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for not including the entire war cabinet have already been addressed above -- reasons which you ignore. What's ironic is that you're accusing another editor of bad faith while at the same time making bad faith attacks on me ("grow up"; "hiding behind IP"; "pathetic") that I find grossly offensive. 220.255.1.84 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion anywhere for why the members of the War Cabinet are not notable political leaders? So for what reason are they not notable? I see plenty of people claiming they have supplied one and claiming I've ignored them but none whatsoever in reality. So I have reverted, I won't do so again if a reasonable discussion is forthcoming. Can we stop the stupid edit wars please. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC) To add, if you're going to insist on including political leaders at least be consistent and include them all. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The reasons were stated here, here, and here. Note lack of reply from you in every case -- you were ignoring them. There is no inconsistency. As previously noted, only the Prime Minister has been described as a war leader. By contrast, none of the other members of her war cabinet have been so described. 220.255.1.68 (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

[2] Does not refute or address the point. You merely state that it has been refuted and state that the War Cabinet are not equally prominent. The guideline states notable political leaders, clearly you have not addressed my comment. Member of the War Cabinet are all notable political leaders and played a key role in the decisions on the war.
[3] Does not refute or address the point. You state the Prime Minister's role is unique. So is the role of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Minister and the Attorney General. All are notable notable political leaders. You also assert the power to deploy the armed forces is vest in her alone, that is untrue.
[4] Does not refute or address the point. You merely source a series of opinions from a number of authors. We deal in WP:FACTs not WP:OPINIONs.
You will also note in each case I replied to point out you were not addressing this. The guideline states notable political leaders, you are edit warring to exclude notable political leaders and your arguments for excluding them don't stand up to scrutiny. You could paraphrase your argument as I've a ton of books about Margaret Thacther and I can source a ton of opinions bigging up her role. So can you give a reason for excluding them as your position is far from being consistent. Wee Curry Monster talk 03:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Except the guidelines say "notable leaders," not "notable political leaders." Meaning they should be notable in relation to the war and noted as such -- as "war leader[s]" -- not notable simply because they are politicians. Not all members of the war cabinet are notable war leaders: only the Prime Minister has been noted as such. You can't be a notable war leader if you haven't been noted as one.

2. The power to deploy the armed forces is vested in the Prime Minister: "It is commonly accepted that the prerogative's deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise and is not statutorily bound to consult others." See House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fifteenth Report (2006). None of the others are unique in that regard -- not even the Defence Minister, whose role is subsumed by the Prime Minister's. See Badsey et al., The Falklands Conflict Twenty Years On: Lessons for the Future 61 (2005) ("in times of war the role of Defence Secretary has to be undertaken by the Prime Minister."). "War is an intensely prime ministerial activity." Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders since 1945 103 (2000). But it's not an intensely deputy prime ministerial activity, or an intensely foreign secretarial activity, or an intensely attorney-esque activity -- none of those roles are unique in the relevant sense.

3. I have provided meticulous support for my claims (nearly 20 reliable sources!) refuting your point, whereas you have provided none. You rely solely on opinion (principally your own), yet purport to lecture me about WP:SOURCEs? What you characterize as "a series of opinions from a number of authors" were actually citations to reliable sources (historians, academic publications, books, a professional military journal, a textbook on administrative law) noting the Prime Minister's dominant role as a war leader -- no such notability exists for the rest of her war cabinet; none have been noted as "war leaders" in their own right.

Your failure to adduce any evidence for their inclusion makes the case for their exclusion. 220.255.1.77 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Cobblers to be frank.

1. Members of the War Cabinet are not notable war leaders according to you. 'cos you say so is basically your argument.

2. Again opinion not fact. You mix the theoretical powers of Prime Minister, which are not applied in Custom and Practise. As the UK does not have a written constitution much is done on the basis of custom and practise. You clearly know this but are misrepresenting theoretical powers to "win" an argument.

3. Trying argument from authority? Source: Lawrence Freedman, Official History of the Falklands War p21. emphasised the importance of a Small War Cabinet meeting regularly and taking decisions, also that day-to-day oversight was to be provided by...which came to be known as the War Cabinet. This became the critical instrument of crisis management and on p.22 some real meaning would be given to the concept of collective responsibility. Just a sample of sources at my disposal supporting that point. Spamming a load of quotes is not a substitute for mature discussion as you seem to think. Neither is this meticulous, its verbage and intellectually bankrupt.

Your final point is defunct. You seem determined to "win" at all costs but sorry this article doesn't exist for that purpose. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss not to battle as you seem determined to do. I note that I was prepared to compromise to allow for Margaret Thatcher to be included, you seem to be unable to countenance anything other than winning.

I still don't see a reason for excluding them and your determination to do so is looking increasing shaky. I will be restoring it presently if I don't see a coherent argument. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

1. No. The argument is that they aren't notable war leaders because they haven't been noted as such. You can't be a notable war leader if you haven't been noted as one. Unless you can provide a source that says they are "war leaders," you have no case.

2. Your own assertions are opinion, not fact. You have been debunked: "It is commonly accepted that the prerogative's deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise and is not statutorily bound to consult others." 1 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fifteenth Report 8 (2006). "In practice this means that the Prerogative is exercised by the Prime Minister." 2 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fifteenth Report 1 (2006). Here are the facts:

• "[T]he current deployment power" is "highly personalised" and "exercised by the Prime Minister alone -- without any formal requirement for scrutiny or discussion." 1 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution at 8.

• "When you look at the royal prerogative, it is not the prerogative of the Cabinet, it is a prerogative of the Prime Minister." 2 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution at 3.

• "[C]ommitment of our Armed Forces [is] solely on the exercise of the prerogative by the Prime Minister in whom it is now vested." Id. at 108.

The power to deploy the armed forces is vested in the Prime Minister both in theory and practice.

3. You're fooling no one by selectively quoting one of my sources. You omitted the part where it says: "questions of timing and secrecy meant that the Cabinet was being associated with decisions already effectively taken." The context makes clear that "some real meaning to the concept of collective responsibility" meant no more than "the Prime Minister [taking] care to keep the full Cabinet informed." Freedman does not say that the rest of the war cabinet are "war leader[s]" in their own right. That's just something you made up.

4. What Freedman does say is: "Thatcher dominated the War Cabinet." Lawrence Freedman, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Vol. II: War and Diplomacy 23 (2005). This is where the "prominence is relative" argument torpedoes your attempt to shoehorn the cabinet where it doesn't belong. The template guidelines specify "an upper limit of about seven" per column, which means that only the most notable merit inclusion. Adding the entire cabinet would exceed that limit. Your attempts to circumvent the template parameters look increasingly untenable. Also incoherent is your preposterous digression about my motives (you need to stop with the personal attacks). We now have four separate and independent reasons for excluding them, backed by meticulous support (nearly 20 reliable sources), whereas you have none. Your failure to adduce any evidence for their inclusion makes the case for their exclusion. 220.255.1.82 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They should be excluded as they are not notable leaders, military or political all were under Thatcher. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense it was collective decision making, I still don't see a coherent argument for excluding the War Cabinet. So far, what is the argument, you can sum it up as "they're not notable, 'cos we say so." Doesn't cut the mustard on wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They are not political leaders, all members of the Tory party had Thatcher as their leader. Collective descussions but the final decision was Thatchers, it was her government to promote or sack as she thought fit. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so let me get this straight. You assert that the Secretary of State for Defence has no leadership role? Thats really your argument. Wow. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough

In the long dull discussion above, I see 7 editors supporting the inclusion of Thatcher (versus 1 indifferent and 2 against). Following the suggestion that the entire war cabinet be included as an (unnecessary) compromise, 4 editors have said this would be a bad idea, for various logical and referenced reasons which have been presented numerous times above. At present, only 1 supports the idea, which is also against the consensus established by other articles and the infobox page. I’m afraid the onus is on you Wee Curry Monster to provide better support for your stance, as presently you haven’t provided anything other than opinion (and one rather vague ref) and made various claims that we haven’t addressed your suggestion (we all have, at length).

You say that a consensus hasn’t been reached, despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary. You also claim that all there is here is a ‘majority’ that can tag team the article to enforce our viewpoint. You might like to read Wikipedia:Tag_team#False_accusations_of_tag-teaming and bear in mind that the only editor who will be reverting the changes is likely to be you. This isn’t tag teaming.

You say that the entire war cabinet is “not notable ‘cos we say so” doesn’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia. Sadly neither does “they are notable ‘cos Wee Curry Monster says so”. Please supply good quality references and indicate any form of consensus of opinion on this matter or I shall be removing them. Editors above have already supplied references and demonstrated logical reasons for not including the full war cabinet. The consensus demonstrated by other articles is also quite clear.

I’ve also raised this issue at the Milhist talk page as I’m quite frankly bored of it now and would like to get down to actually doing this article some good. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We are supposed to be describing how the Falklands War was led by political leaders. OK fair enough, I note that although I felt that it should have been restricted to military leaders I was prepared to compromise and include political leaders. Politically the war was led by the War Cabinet in the UK, it was not led personally by Margaret Thatcher, she chaired a War Cabinet practising collective responsibility. To simply put in Margaret Thatcher alone carries with it the implication of a presidential like role that doesn't reflect the way the war was led. I make this point and its simply dismissed.

You suggest sources have been provided to establish that Thatcher was a noted war leader. No, what we have seen is a lot of quotes presenting the opinions of individual authors. In most cases from flattering biographies written by Thatcher fanbois. Not necessarily an objective source for such an opinion. I too include the opinion of the noted historian Sir Freedman, who wrote the official history of the Falklands War who emphasises the role of the War Cabinet in practising collective responsibility. I personally place greater emphasis on his opinion as he is very much noted for his objectivity.

How could we include this information. We could wiklink to the War Cabinet article, with a note it was chaired by Margaret Thatcher. We could list the War Cabinet. We could do a lot of things. What I've suggested is a quite reasonable point.

I say this as all members of the War Cabinet were noted politicians and leaders in their own right. All have their own wikipedia article conforming to WP:GNG, so their notability is well established. This is my argument, not as you mischaracterise because "I says so". Your response is that Thatcher is the only notable leader and its basically 'cos you say so. You and others have not demonstrated a logical reason for not including the War Cabinet. In fact, I consider it a major omission from the article.

I have indicated a willingness to compromise and to discuss how what I proposed might be implemented. I have waited patiently for a response to what I proposed and all I have basically got in response is a slagging off. Frankly if you're bored, tough, I have made a reasonable point and have tried earnestly to engage in discussion. You haven't reciprocated, you dismissed it out of hand. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, my point is that they are not notable enough to be included in a summary infobox. You have mischaracterised everyone else's input, claiming that all you've said has been 'dismissed out of hand'. The long winded discussion above is proof that hasn't happened. You are required to provide evidence and consensus for your stance. You still haven't. Nor have you engaged in any discussion about how it might be implemented until now. I'm more than happy for a section on the war cabinet to be in the article, but not in the infobox. Nor is anyone else in this discussion. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all of the War Cabinet from the infobox based on precedent as demonstrated in the Vietnam War infobox and others. The War Cabinet lacks the authority to declare war, as does the Monarch, although a smart PM canvasses the members of the putative War Cabinet before declaring war. The PM alone, as head of government, is worthy of inclusion. Furthermore, I thought it improper to ignore the Argentine equivalent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good example and it precisely proves my point, a Presidential style of Government rather than the collective responsibility of a War Cabinet as practised in the UK. A precadent like the Vietnam War, yes of course, one size fits all. All democracies are the same, all are governed in the same way. The PM alone, 'cos I say so, no reason, rhyme or logic and just ignore the opinion of one of the most noted historians who has documented the Falklands War

Once again we see someone steaming in, not listening and pushing their weight around. What you described as a long winded discussion is frankly a dialogue of the deaf, where you simply refused to listen. I have tried to discuss this and here we go again, you drag your mates in to impose what you want. This is bollocks, this isn't about improving the article its simply bullying. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And its nice to observe the complete lack of expertise or knowledge of the conflict. [5] Also because no equivalent for the Argentines, what the hell do you think the military junta of Galtieri, Dozo and Anaya was? Unbelievable. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I was thinking that the Argentines were part of the military chain of command, but that doesn't negate my fundamental point, which you ignored with a BS reference to a Presidential style of gov't, that only the head of gov't is worthy of inclusion in the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done a minor WP:BOLD edit to simply wikilink to the War Cabinet article, I'm about to add a reference to Freedman. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede warning

Can anyone explain this warning in the lede? "Please do not change the lede without discussing in talk first, please do not remove this message either. The lede evolved as a painful compromise and editors are requested not to make changes without discussing in talk first." Looking through the archives, this appears to have been added unnecessarily, as no such compromise exists for this article. If there isn't I'll remove it. There are a few grammar changes I'm going to make - like improving 5 word sentences. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh please don't, that dates back to 2007 and it stems from the attempt by Irish nationalist to have Malvinas War put on the same level as Falklands War. It went all the way to arbcom. Its a can of worms I wouldn't want to open again. The discussion is all over the place and if you really want to waste a day I can point you to it. Trust me its not worth it though. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A 4 year old debate prevents editors from making grammar changes without passing them for approval here first? That isn't how wikipedia works. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There was that. But there was also dispute more generally: this was a multi-year dispute on several articles that eventually managed to reach a stable compromise only after many of the participants were blocked and banned. At the time, the dispute as to how and whether we should refer to the word "Malvinas" wasn't that far short of the dispute as to how and whether we should refer to "Danzig" or "Gdansk" (though I believe that this one - only just - managed to avoid an Arbcom), and I don't see why anyone would want to reprise it. Pfainuk talk 15:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they wouldn't, but that isn't explained or considered in the warning, which just smacks of wp:own. I've been bold, made some grammar changes and modified the warning a little. I hope everyone will see this as a constructive edit, and not some attempt to force a political viewpoint, which seems to be the concern of the warning. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to revert the content, which I acknowledge as an improvement, but please change the warning back. It was made that strong for a reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no problem with focussing the warning much more closely to the point at hand (which is the balance of political viewpoints and specifically the use of English- and Spanish-language names), but I don't support the change made because it does not appear to cover those issues. Pfainuk talk 15:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm happy for it to be more carefully focussed. At present it is too strong. Ideally it should also point editors to a discussion on the subject. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@Langus: was there a reason why you reverted my change here? Pfainuk talk 16:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I assumed it was an accident, so I've just re-added it. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I figured it probably was, but I was concerned that if I just rereverted and there was a good reason, we'd just start edit warring instead of addressing it. Pfainuk talk 16:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It was, indeed; I apologize Pfainuk. Thank you Steve for spotting it. For the record, I believe this is definitely a positive change. --Langus (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Anniversary

I've put a topic on the Milhist talk page to see if anyone's interested in expanding and improving this article with an eye to getting it to GA status before the anniversary next year. It'll probably receive a bit of attention then. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck, it will have my support, but you can expect a lot of problems in doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

By the way, for all the discussion, no one noticed that Brigadier Anthony Wilson was missing from the infobox and it appears there is no such article on wikipedia. A major ommission. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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 [6], 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)

Improving the article

I was surprised by the obvious problems with this article, given how prominent the Falklands War remains in the UK and in Argentina. While military history is not generally my area, I am familiar with the Falklands conflict, and would suggest the following changes.

1) The article needs to loose a lot of the military terminology, abbreviations and references to equipment.

"Rapier missile launchers were carried as underslung loads of Sea Kings for rapid deployment."

"Major Mario Castagneto's 601st Commandos tried to move forward on Kawasaki motorbikes and commandeered Land Rovers to rescue 602nd Commando Company on Estancia Mountain."

We do not need to know the model of helicoptor or motorbike used here; it isn't really relevant. This goes for a lot of the content in the article. Weapon models only really need to be mentioned when they have an outcome on the operations, in my opinion. Otherwise, one ends up with an article that is confusing to a non-military historian.

Here is an example of relevant detail re: equipment:

"During this battle, 13 were killed when HMS Glamorgan, straying too close to shore while returning from the gun line, was struck by an improvised trailer-based Exocet MM38 launcher taken from the destroyer ARA Seguí by Argentine Navy technicians.[75]"

2) Military abbreviations, such as SAM, AAB, AAA, 2ic, UXB, are confusing for the non-specialist and should be removed.

3) This article needs a lot of its statements referencing from books rather than online, even something like the Hastings/Jenkins book would be a good start.

4) Some potentially controversial statements , such as the statement below in Landing at San Carlos-Bomb Alley needs to be properly referenced or deleted, as a matter of priority:

"Jones had threatened to lead the prosecution of senior BBC officials for treason but was unable to do so since he was himself killed in action around Goose Green."

5) I would suggest breaking the War section down into more manageable chunks eg Naval operations, British land campaign

6) Less prominence needs to go to the SAS and special forces.

"For the next week, the SAS and the Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre (M&AWC) of 3 Commando Brigade waged intense patrol battles with patrols of the volunteers' 602nd Commando Company under Major Aldo Rico, normally 2IC of the 22nd Mountain Infantry Regiment. Throughout 30 May, Royal Air Force Harriers were active over Mount Kent. One of them, Harrier XZ963, flown by Squadron Leader Jerry Pook—in responding to a call for help from D Squadron, attacked Mount Kent's eastern lower slopes, and that led to its loss through small-arms fire. Pook was subsequently awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.[65]"

The "SAS/elite forces" myth does not need to be fuelled further by this article. What is an intense patrol battle? A skirmish? The sections on special forces occupy greater space than the Fall of Stanley! Again, special forces should be reduced to actions of importance eg destroying aircraft on Pebble Island. While I do not doubt that the special forces' contribution to the conflict was important, it should not unduly occupy space in the article at the expense of greater concision or more detailled ofcus on other areas.

I would like to invite other users to discuss improvements and so on here. Bits of the article, eg the public relations section, are good. While I personally do not have time to edit this article, such feedback may be helpful to whoever takes it on. Good luck! Jnorthdur (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Many people are interested in how and when what materiel is used in a conflict, saying "Rapier missile launchers" (and preferably linking the first use) is more informative and takes up similar space as "Anti aircraft missile launchers". Same for "Sea King" and "helicopter".

2. Military abbreviations should also have the full version included on first use, and a wikilink to their article. Removing them entirely would be less informative.

3. Agreed. Referencing could be improved.

4. Agreed.

5. Agreed, a great idea.

6. This should be reviewed.

(Hohum ^@) 03:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Agree. In some cases, the weapons decided the outcome of a confrontation and then the differences should be showed (eg Belgrano-Conqueror). But as the article in Wikipedia is written as an introduction to the theme for an universal reader and not for an historian, I plead for less details in the description in favour of a better understanding of the complete war.

2. a generally understandable name of the weapon with a wikilink to the resp. article is a posible solution. Removing them entirely would be less informative.

3. Agreed. Referencing could be improved.

4. Agreed to remove this sentence: "Jones had threatened...". Which others?

5. Agreed. I suggest "1 Deployment", "2 First Contact(?)", "3 Landing", "4 Marsh", "4 Stanley". We can also repeat the sections used in books.

6. Agree.

I support Jnorthdur ideas. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)