Talk:Falklands War

Commanders and Leaders

Shouldn't Margaret Thatcher be included in the Commander and Leaders table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.199.72 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, she wasn't part of the military command. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not disagreeing, but out of my own curiosity what does that mean exactly? Did she have no in depth part of the Strategic planning or say in how things were done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.225.217 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Falklands War Belligerents

I'm not sure how this works, but isn't the winner supposed to be on the left? British forces regained control of the islands, the Argentinians surrendered. And in terms of lives, too, the British lost less men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.57.82 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Manchester, it's supposed to be in alphabetical order. Else we couldn't write about ongoing wars, since we don't know who will win. And what about wars without any winners like the Iran–Iraq War?

World War I: <Allied (Entente) Powers> vs. <Central Powers>, World War II:<Allies> vs. <Axis>, Gulf War: <Coalition forces> vs. <Iraq>; I don't know if it's intentional or just a coincidence. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

File:FalklandsWarMontage3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:FalklandsWarMontage3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:The Sun (Gotcha).png

I removed this image, but was reverted. Can I ask why it is believed that it is needed? The image page didn't have a particularly coherent non-free use rationale, and the headline is mentioned only in passing. The image is clearly legitimate elsewhere, but it is not clear why it is here. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article, and I don't propose this as the basis of a FUR, but as someone who lived through it (me and 50+million other Brits ;) ), this to me is the iconic image of the Falklands war. It conveys a whole lot of meaning, good and bad, and neatly illustrates not only the historical event but the political mood at the time in the UK. I think the article would be very much worse off without it. Thparkth (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I can fully appreciate that (and I admit that this was before my time), but, as you say, that can hardly be the basis of a FUR. We have to ask whether the image actually adds to reader understanding of the article. The headline is mentioned in passing, but much more than that would be undue weight, and if it's only worth mentioning in passing, the need for a non-free image is... Questionable. It is used legitimately in a more specific article, but this summary article covering the entire war does not need to contain the image. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that it enhances the reader's understanding of how the war was treated in at least one popular segment of the UK media. Not only was the sinking itself a historic event, but the newspaper headline itself was a historic event which generated much controversy and commentary. No comprehensive treatment of the Falklands War can fail to discuss this newspaper cover, or to allude to the issues it raises. There is no better way to convey this information than by showing the front page itself. There is no doubt that removing this image from this article would leave most people scratching their heads in puzzlement, especially when there is absolutely no legal or ethical basis for doing so, and not even any explicit basis in wikipedia policy for it. Thparkth (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first things you say, and I was attempting to preempt that argument by saying "It is used legitimately in a more specific article, but this summary article covering the entire war does not need to contain the image." There is a subtle but important difference between enhancing "the reader's understanding of how the war was treated in at least one popular segment of the UK media" and significantly increasing readers' understanding of the article, which is what the NFCC require. Yes, a book on the war (a truly "comprehensive treatment of the Falklands War") would certainly include the image, but a summary article like this does not need to; instead, it can be found in more specific articles. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your understanding of contextual significance is incorrect in this case. Images are not to enhance "understanding of the article" per WP:NFCC, but rather "understanding of the topic." The "topic" in this case is the Falklands War, and as in any modern war, the public mood and media coverage of the events is a vital aspect of that topic. I'm afraid you are also wrong to suggest that we should not be trying to write articles that are comprehensive; in fact being comprehensive is one of the featured article criteria. The question of whether an article should explore a particular aspect of a topic is one best left to the editors working on the content - it should not be driven in reverse by copyright issues. Thparkth (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not seek articles that are fully comprehensive, we seek them that are appropriately comprehensive, and write them in summary style. Using that logic, any content which is appropriate in a subsidiary article is appropriate here, which is clearly not the case- otherwise, why have the subsidiaries at all? Yes, "[t]he question of whether an article should explore a particular aspect of a topic is one best left to the editors working on the content", but we have policies as to whether or not non-free content can be used. We can't just ignore the policies because "the editors working on the content" don't like them, if that's what you're trying to imply. I have no objection to the brief mention of the headline, and I have already said I feel it is appropriate; however, a brief mention of a headline does not mean that, automatically, a non-free image of the front page of the paper is required. That's the issue under question here- trying to phrase it as some kind of wider "the editors versus the policy" is going to confuse things... J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that your argument for removal is essentially this: the article should not explore this aspect of the topic, so the image is not necessary. I disagree. The editors of the article have chosen to explore media coverage, and the image is justifiably used in that context. There is no policy reason to remove it. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Thparkth (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not my argument. I have repeatedly said that the issue is adequately explored. What I am saying is that the brief mention of the headline is enough. The use of this non-free image does not add significantly to reader understanding of the topic, and so its use here is contrary to non-free content criterion 8. If you feel it is warranted, I recommend you add a useful, specific rationale to the image page, explaining what this image is adding to the article, and why that needs to be added. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The number of words dedicated to the headline in the article may be small, but they are important, as is the image. (Hohum ^@) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you feel the image is adding to the article, and why is it so important that it is used? J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It shows the reaction of a major news source in one of the combatant nations. As Thparkth has already said, it is "the iconic image of the Falklands war. It conveys a whole lot of meaning, good and bad, and neatly illustrates not only the historical event but the political mood at the time in the UK." I can't see how you can think that it doesn't add understanding to the topic of the article. (Hohum ^@) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur entirely with Hohum Blackshod (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The image removed was utterly iconic, that front page of the Sun was absolutely infamous during the war and afterward, it is featured in just about every book, every documentary, in fact I doubt you can pick up any reference work on the Falklands War and not see a discussion of that image. I really can't understand why anyone would want to remove it, its use is vital for conveying the media coverage of the war. Its like the article on Iwo Jima not having the flag raising. I'm stunned, genuinely stunned we're even having this discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm clearly fighting a losing battle here, but, again, the fact that the image is "iconic" and widely used does not mean that any old usage of it is legit. The question has to be whether the use meets the NFCC, and, so far as I can see, it does not. There is no kind of special exemption for images someone has decided are iconic, infamous or whatever else. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat a comment from my previous post, its use is justified on the basis that it is vital for conveying media coverage of the war. In particular:

“ whilst The Sun became notorious for its jingoistic and xenophobic headlines, including 20 April headline "Stick It Up Your Junta!",[105] and was condemned for the "Gotcha" headline following the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano.[113][114][115] ”

The image is used to illustrate the outrage felt at that headline. It does meet NFCC#8 specifically@

“ Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary. ”

This isn't a matter of special exemption, its use is justified on policy grounds. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

One, that's a guideline, not a policy. Two, the extent of the "critical commentary" is the phrase "the "Gotcha" headline". That's not commentary. We can't use a non-free image of everything that is mentioned in passing in the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that it isn't mentioned "in passing", its mentioned as a key commentary on press coverage during the war. And the image is vital in conveying the coverage. Its use is covered by FUR and is compliant with policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Gotcha" front-page is iconic for the media coverage of the Falklands War. It would be better to use our resources on finding the Argentine front-page with Invincible on fire. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

2nd image removal

The image had an incorect copyright tag, for info copyright expires after 25 years in Argentina. I've corrected it and restored the image to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but you're going to need to provide some more information- date of creation, date of publication and author would be a good start, evidence of public domain status in the United States would be a good next step. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Jihad on images.

May I remind the readers of Falklands War that some of the images are going to be deleted:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:FalklandsWarMontage3.jpg
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_27#File:The_empire_strikes_back_newsweek.jpg
• and of course Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:The_Sun_.28Gotcha.29.png

Unfortunately such discussions are always held far from the talk pages of the articles. This will attracts people with minor knowledge of the subject, e.g. why the images are needed here. A new busybody can every year threaten to delete the images, and it's very hard to dig up the same arguments at some out-of-the-way talk archives. If the debate was held here, or at the image pages, the busybodies can read it before they re-establish deletion proposals. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)