Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/09 January 2012/Falklands War

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Falklands War
Status	Closed
Request date	22:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Requesting party	Wee Curry Monster talk
Parties involved	User:Ranger Steve,User:Sturmvogel 66,User:ALR,User:Wee Curry Monster
Mediator(s)	ItsZippy, Jeffw

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The dispute is over the means to best represent the way the Falklands War was led by its political masters in the UK in the infobox.

Who is involved?

The list of the users involved.

• User:Ranger Steve
• User:Sturmvogel 66
• User:ALR
• User:Wee Curry Monster

What is the dispute?

The UK has a system of cabinet government, where decisions are taken collectively rather than by individuals. On the one side, it is suggested that there needs to be reference to the War Cabinet taking collective decisions. The counter argument is that Margaret Thatcher is the only person of note to be mentioned. The counter counter argument is this is misleading as it implies Thatcher made decisions in a presidential rather than collective manner.

The two edits are:

A) Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
B) War Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

The dispute has descended into rather foolish and petty bickering, which is making reasonable discussion impossible. Rather than discussing content, it has devolved into blame wars.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

Talk:Falklands War#Margaret Thatcher
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Falklands and request for input on the use of the infobox (I actually think this was counter productive).

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

Just about everything you can see on wikipedia to make a dispute unnecessarily protracted:

1. Talking past each other
2. Refusing to consider compromises
3. Ignoring points made
4. Misrepresenting argument points
5. Claiming a majority is a consensus
6. Finger pointing

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

I would hope a cooler and uninvolved head can structure the discussion better.

Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?

Mediator notes

Hi there, I am please to offer myself as mediator of this case. If you accept me, I hope we can bring this case to a resolution. I shall lay out certain grounds rules as to how negotiations should be conducted and then try to bring this dispute to a resolution. Please remember that mediation invariably involves compromise but should allow closure on the issue. If you would accept my mediation of this case, please indicate your acceptance below. I will give 72 hours for all involved parties to comment - if no-one rejects my offer of mediation, I shall assume acceptance and begin mediation. If any party rejects this offer, I shall withdraw my offer of mediation and allow another to take my place. Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As two parties have signified acceptance and none have opposed my offer of mediation, I shall continue with the case. I would first like to establish some ground rules by which this mediation process will run. Once we've done that, we can establish the issues which need resolving and a get going. Please could all parties signify their acceptance of the ground rules below. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we've had no response from Ranger Steve, and his talk pages says that he is not very active at the moment. To enable progression, we'll carry on this mediation without him; if you have a problem with this, please let me know, otherwise I'll assume it it ok. I'd like to get moving with the mediation now, and to establish the key issues. Therefore, I would request that each party please provide an opening statement, outlining what they think the issues which need to be discussed are. Please keep them brief and focussed on what the issues are. Please post them in the section below. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the opening statements. This seems to me like quite a simple issue, but has caused controversy. There is agreement on the actual facts of the matter - the nature of the British government during the Falklands War; the main problem seems to be how such information should be presented in the infobox. Although the issue itself is simple, there is not that much in the way of a 'middle ground'. Nevertheless, I think we should under way with discussion. Before we start, I would like to make a few brief notes. I will also post a mediation timetable below, which will guide this process. a) The conduct of users has become an issue in this dispute. If we are to have a discussion, I will request that all previous conduct issues from the past are dropped and forgotten. Moreover, I will insist that we assume good faith, assuming that we all want to improve the article and no one is intending to deceive. b) Certain areas of policy have been mentioned; we are here to discuss the matter at hand. Any off topic comments about wider Wikipedia policy should be avoided. c) Relevant policy will be important in this dispute, especially WP:IBX. I suggest that this is read and understood by all parties. The discussion should centre around the best interpretation of the policy. d) Remember, we're not out to win a debate. Rather, we want to find the very best possible solution - this may be your idea, someone else's idea or something in between. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Heya. I'm going to join in as another mediator. --J (t) 04:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jeff. Looking at your contributions, I'm a bit curious...what mediating/DR experience do you have? :) Lord Roem (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. And typically, you should contact the current mediator before arbitrarily joining in. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 14:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, thanks for your interest and enthusiasm. As two other people have pointed out, you do see, to have little mediating experience, so I will request that you remove yourself from this case. It is good to see enthusiasm, though - I strongly recommend you look at the dispute resolution noticeboard and third opinion, where you can gain experience. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We have had little activity here for a while, and most parties seem not to be taking part. If we do not get any substantial contributions from the other parties by the weekend, I will close this case. If that happens, I would recommend that discussions resume at the relevant talk pages. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am closing this case for the reasons outlined above. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ground rules

• Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained and, as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur. I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
• Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
• When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
• MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that both of you agree to abide by the outcome of this case.

Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

Participants, please indicate your acceptance of the ground rules in this section. Thank you.

• I agree Wee Curry Monster talk 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Sure --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Content" ALR (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Agenda

[1% ]Garner party agreement to ground rules.  Done

[5%] Obtain opening statements from all involved parties.  Done

[50%] Initiate discussion on the major issue of the presentation of information in the infobox. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[60%] Re-assess the status of the mediation. Allow the raising of further issues which may have arisen in relation to the issue at hand.

[75%] Discuss any further issues raised by the involved parties. Discuss issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved.

[85%] Re-visit the initial issue, discussing alternative solutions, if required.

[90%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future

[95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles.

[100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation.

Opening statements

Opening Statement by WCM

Personally I would prefer to omit political leadership from the infobox. The Falklands War was lead by the military with broad campaign guidelines and RoE defined by the politicians who did not exercuise leadership of the operation beyond this. Others disagree on this point and suggest Margaret Thatcher should be included as Prime Minister.

If political leaders are to be included, the information even when summarised should be accurate and not misleading. Listing only Margaret Thatcher as a leader does mislead. It implies a presidential style of Government, with Margaret Thatcher taking decisions alone. This didn't happen. Britain has a cabinet style of Government, with decisions taken collectively. In the case of the Falklands War, early on a War Cabinet was formed to provide political oversight of the campaign. Hence, I suggest as a minium we should wikilink the War Cabinet for the Falklands, or if others wish to see Margaret Thatcher there it be noted that she chaired the War Cabinet. The difference between the two edits is minimal and it provides far more information. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening statement - ALR

I think there are a number of issues related to this discussion that are pertinent; the content dispute itself, individual behaviour and two aspects of policy. I wouldn't intend to discuss behaviour in this case but it may be germane.

With respect to the content dispute, for a long time the article in question has been stable without including political leadership. An effort was made to include Margaret Thatcher that led to a discussion following which the majority decision was that she should be included, on the basis that it's consistent with style elsewhere. Personally I would disagree that she should be included, but the majority take an alternative view.

We then move on to the proposition that it is inappropriate to include the individual, given the collective nature of political shenanigans in the UK. I wouldn't say that the resultant discussion was particularly dignified but the majority decision was that the individual, Prime Minister, is the most appropriate representation. Again that's consistent with elsewhere in Wikipedia. Personally I'm ambivalent on that point as I'd prefer that political vermin weren't included at all.

We then move to a slightly more abstract issue of policy that is probably not going to be addressed, either here or elsewhere but I think it worth articulating as it is germane. In both these issues we're discussing a binary position, so consensus is not achievable. We have a majority decision and the fallacy of consensus doesn't lend itself to achieving closure within the collaboration. It would take a sea change in leadership in Wikipedia and a reduction in zealotry and near religious fervour to modify a core, albeit fundamentally flawed, policy.

The other policy issue that applies relates to the use of sources and our treatment of expertise is an obstacle to development of an adequate quality of product. Our policies don't allow for the nuance that expertise brings, given that all sources are perceived as equal and only sources, not the understanding of them, being important. There are significant weaknesses in Wikipedias ability to deal with nuance and subtlety that have become quite strongly exhibited in this case.

ALR (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening statement - Sturmvogel_66

My attention was brought to this affair by a post on the MilHist talk page and I moved to bring the infobox inline with the other military conflict infoboxes where either only the head of gov't is mentioned, along with the military leadership, or only the military leadership is mentioned. WCM vociferiously and insultingly disagreed, blowing a mistake of mine in an edit summary where I deleted the names of the Junta and War Cabinet from the infobox and that my reference to the infobox used on the Vietnam War as an example demonstrated an ignorance of the differences between the US and UK types of gov't. Let me say that I don't dispute any of WCM's arguments about who actually ran the war at the political level for both sides, but I believe that that info is best presented in the main body, not the infobox. I will point out that I have made no changes at all to the main body because WCM is correct in his facts. However, WP:IBX states that the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." and I feel that WCM's version violated that principle of brevity. In fact, I'd argue that the current version with its four bullet points on the result of the war is still too long and should be limited to "decisive British victory" and "return of the status quo ante bellum" as the collapse of the Galtieri gov't and consolidation of power by the Conservatives in the UK are second-order effects and should be covered in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ranger Steve

Hello there, unfortunately some developments off wiki mean that I haven’t been around for the last few weeks, and won’t be for the next couple of weeks to come. However, having read this MedCab I will take 20 minutes to give my thoughts.

If this debate was simply about the matter described above by WCM, then not only would this MedCab be excessive, it would also instantly fail the prerequisites for listing. The suggestion of including the War Cabinet in the form shown above was barely 24 hours old when this MedCab was filed, and I see no other attempts at mediation made by the person who made the listing.

In actual fact, this listing has been fairly misrepresented above. It isn’t as simple as the two edits shown, nor as simple as the two ‘sides’ alluded to. The initial debate was whether or not to include Thatcher in the article’s infobox (note there is no disagreement that she should be in the article). WCM disagreed that she should be, citing rules that prohibited her inclusion. I became involved after a request for input was made at the Milhist talk page. I felt that per the standard use of an infobox, she should be included. After WCMs argument that rules prohibited the inclusion was proved false and a considerable majority of editors agreed that she should be included, WCM insisted it was only acceptable if every member of the War Cabinet of the government was included (for the sake of completeness I should also point out that WCM denies ‘insisting’ on their inclusion, despite the long arguments made, refusal to accept the consensus, repeated edits made to include the cabinet, and of course, this mediation procedure. This is insistent behaviour. He denies that he has ‘demanded’ their inclusion – which is true, nowhere has he said “I demand…”, but of course ‘insist’ is a verb that can be demonstrated through actions). This suggestion was also rejected by the majority of editors, as being too much information. Note once again that there is no disagreement that the cabinet should be in the article.

Finally, at the eleventh hour, WCM changed his stance to the option B above. It’s still against the vast majority of other editor’s opinions and consensus established by other articles. Barely a day or so after taking this stance, WCM filed this MedCab. The filing above makes it appear that only 4 editors are involved, despite the dozen or so usernames to be found in the discussion. It also makes it appear that the discussion has only been about the two options presented above which, as I’ve just explained, it isn’t.

No steps have been taken by WCM to resolve the dispute until this MedCab (the discussion on the milhist take page was instigated by myself), and so the case still seems to fail the Mediation Cabal Case prerequisites. The filing is incomplete and not all editors who have an interest have been informed.

Unfortunately, WCM also decided to make this debate personal by making regular bad faith accusations, misrepresentation of other peoples comments and, most recently, accusing myself and other editors of bullying him and making indirect suggestions of canvassing. These are in no way either a) my style, or b) evident in the discussions – if they were I’m sure WCM would have gone to ANI or wp:civil. As it is, had I been active at the time I might have gone there myself. I don’t take kindly to such ridiculous false and bad faith allegations.

With regards to the content dispute, WCM doesn’t seem to want to understand that my stance has always included compromise. I have repeatedly said, right from my first comment, that this might be a subject that warrants further discussion on a broader level. Not only would that get a wider range of opinions, but it would make sure that any decision applied here was relevant and consistent across the board of conflict infoboxes. WCM has refused to do so, as he believes the Falklands War is a unique example. This misses three points. One, it isn’t unique – there are dozens of other instances where it might be deemed relevant to include a political entity based on its contribution to a war. Should we include the Japanese war cabinet in WWII? Hirohito certainly made very few (if any) strategic decisions and there’s a whole can of worms about whether he should be listed at all. Given that a cabinet made most decisions and merely sought divine agreement from Hirohito, shouldn’t they be included? What about all the other wars Japan was involved in since the Meiji revolution? What about the UNSC in just about any conflict it’s been involved in? Secondly, there is already a very obvious consensus in such articles to include individuals and not organisations in the commander’s field. Thirdly, and most importantly, although the infobox is meant to be a summary of the article content, it is not a summary of the chain of command. The commander’s field is there to show personalities, not a legal list of who commanded what.

I am more than happy to have a wider discussion about this, but I don’t think an RFC limited to this one article is the way forward. For the reasons I’ve outlined above, I think that it would be better to discuss this issue with relevance to all infoboxes where it might be appropriate to include an organisation/political body in this way. Milhist or the infobox talk page would seem most appropriate place, as I’ve already said (quite a bit) in this debate. My previous comment at Milhist (the one that “poisoned the well”, which is here) was not designed to instigate such a debate. By then it was just a request for input in a case of tendentious editing after a straightforward majority consensus had already been reached twice.

I have nothing further to add – even if I were around at the moment I would refrain from having any more input here as I believe this medcab is unjust and unwarranted. The Falklands War article has a dreadful infobox this issue aside, the article is in an appalling state, there appears to be a serious problem with WP:own and I've evidently wasted enough time on it. The only thing I’d request is if you haven’t already, please read the debate on the talk page ItsZippy (not wishing to imply you hadn’t but you may have deliberately avoided doing so in order to remain as impartial as possible). I believe the RFC ALR refers to is the consensuses reached after the issue was twice raised at the Milhist talk page. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If the mediator feels the need to look at the talk page, I don't object in the slightest. But seeing as you and Sturmvogel both seem to want to point fingers ... it wasn't me that posted a call to arms at WT:MILHIST to strong arm his edit into the article. Far from being the 11th hour, I patiently waited 2 weeks for you to respond to my talk page post before putting an edit back into the article, one you immediately edit warred to remove. And I did suggest a compromise, further I was quite prepared to discuss how my suggesations could be implemented and you simply refused to discuss the matter - you simply sought to deflect it elsewhere. Further it was I that followed WP:DR and at all times it has been you that has refused to discuss matters. Compromise has never been on your agenda. I will close by putting out that throughout I focused on content and its only because of your bullying tactics I lost my temper and made a few intemperate remarks. Here, I haven't felt the need to discuss editors but it seems that is all you and Sturmvogel wish to do. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't my edit, it's a decision that has been made by a majority of editors. Just one question - can you provide a diff for my edit warring? Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, it was Sturmvogel who edit warred to remove it. I stand by the rest of my comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement Steve - that's very helpful. I have left a note on the Falkands War talk page here. I'll post further comments below in a moment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Accept Wee Curry Monster talk 00:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Content ALR (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Happy with the ground rules. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, and to distinguish acceptances of my mediation from acceptances of the ground rules, please could you note your acceptance of the ground rules in the section designated above, please? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Main issue - infobox

Thank you everyone for your co-operation and patience so far in the mediation. We've agreed to the ground rules, heard opening statements and established a mediation agenda; we can now start the discussion proper. Per our agenda, the first and major issue is what information should be included in the article's infoxbox in regard to the government and leadership. We seem to have agreement on the actual facts, so discussion should be about the best representation of these facts. I would advise that the WP:IBX policy is considered, as well as any other relevant policies. Remember to keep discussion civil, to assume good faith, and remain focused on the content of the article. I will intervene in the discussion as and when I see fit. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is a reasonable representation of the situation. If we are restricting our discussion to the content of the infobox then there are several more participants required in this discussion. It really doesn't matter what we three agree when the majority has already expressed an opinion. Might I suggest that those who have expressed a view on the article itself be invited to participate here.

Given what I've already outlined I'm not sure that I'm in a position to contribute to any further discussion as I have no strong views either way.

ALR (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Strurmvogel acknowledges my facts are correct, he also states that the infobox needs brevity. Well there is not much difference between A and B above, except that B contains a lot more information. Does he want to explain why B is not sufficiently succinct as to be acceptable to him.

Secondly does A not suggest that Thatcher made decisions alone? I would ask he address this please. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

B is too much detail and has no precedent in any other infobox where they either have the head of gov't and/or just the military leadership. The War Cabinet, however called, has had a role, at some level, in the conduct of every war the British have been in for the last few hundred years, so why should this one mention it specifically? That's something that should be detailed in the main body as some PMs consulted the War Cabinet often, while other did less so often. I really don't care if A implies that Thatcher was the sole decision maker or not; that should be fully explicated in the main body. The infobox is just there to orient a reader to the basic info about the conflict, fuller information should be provided in the body of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So its the detail you object to, not the brevity as indicated. Do I have that right. What I have proposed is brief and more informative. As to your point about the War Cabinet, it had a much greater role in the Falklands War than other conflicts in which the UK was a junior partner. In many ways the Falklands conflict was unique and so trying to cram it into a one size fits all format is not a good fit.

The example you chose was the Vietnam War, citing the US Government, in which the President has a major role in decision making. The UK is fundamentally different in the way decisions were made. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's too long in providing that detail that you like so much. I used the Vietnam War infobox as an example of a proper infobox, nothing more. You may believe that the War Cabinet played a more important role in this conflict than any other, but I don't really care if that's true or not. The cram it into a one size fits all format works just fine to orient a reader to the basic details. More detail is best provided by info in the main body as I've been saying.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the discussion so far, and ALR's comments above, might I suggest the use of an RfC? That would establish the consensus of the community regarding how the information should be presented. Does that sound reasonable? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if any such RFC is neutrally worded, as the last time outside opinion was sought, it was decidely slanted toward poisoning the well. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's see how me might word an possible RfC. I'll start some suggestions below and we can see where we go from there. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It feels to me that an RFC is a more appropriate approach, as the general tenor of this discussion feels more like advocacy than mediation. That said, I would note that an RFC has already been run, and the majority view was that Thatcher should be included in isolation.

Given that this discussion is now pretty much resctricted to things I have no real involvement in I'll leave it at that and remove this from my watchlist.

ALR (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone let me know where the RfC is located, please?ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just read the entirety of the discussion from the Falkland War talk page (I had intended to, but I missed a large section of it - sorry for that). It seems to me that the overwhelming consensus on that talk page is to include Margaret Thatcher as the British leader in the infobox. In my opinion, given that strong consensus, there is no need for a RfC on the specific issue. There may be scope to hold an RfC on how military conflict infoboxes should present leadership in general. How would people feel about that? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on this one. On the one hand, this particular case strikes me as a bit of a one off (with regard to the way in which it is proposed to adapt the infobox and that there isn't much support for changing it) which may not warrant further discussion. On the other hand, WP:Milhist is always striving to improve, so stimulating a wider debate might not be a bad thing. Issues of a related nature sometimes flare up at other articles, although it must be said they are often very precise and don't have an overarching relevance (such as the example of Hirohito's inclusion that I allude to above). I think a fully blown FRC might be overkill, but anyone is welcome to start a thread at either the infobox or milhist talk pages. As long as it's neutrally worded (ie. doesn't reference any particular article), it might lead to some useful improvements or at least make the status quo more clearly defined. Alternatively, it might be asking the Milhist co-ordinators what their thoughts are. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Thatcher should be included, not the war cabinet. She formed the war cabinet and members only participated at her pleasure. She also took the decision to send the first naval forces south before the invasion, and before the formation of the war cabinet. See the article. on 29 March Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ordered three nuclear submarines and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Fort Austin to sail south towards the islands in response to the landing on South Georgia. The following day, during a crisis meeting headed by Thatcher, the Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sir Henry Leach, advised them that "Britain could and should send a task force if the islands are invaded". On 1 April Leach sent orders to a Royal Navy force carrying out exercises in the Mediterranean to be prepared to sail south. Following the invasion on 2 April, after an emergency meeting of the cabinet, approval was given for the formation of a task force to retake the islands. This was backed in an emergency session of the House of Commons the next day. On 6 April, the British Government set up a War Cabinet to provide day-to-day political oversight of the campaign. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that information is incorrect. On 29 March, it was decided to send HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan South not the 3 subs as reported. Lord Carrington wished to send a 3rd sub HMS Conqueror but that decision was deferred due to the lack of sufficient SSN to meet operational requirements. Also the decision was not made by Margaret Thatcher herself, again it was a collective decision made with the FCO and MOD. Your assertion she acted alone is incorrect. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not my assertion she acted alone, its cited in the article. Have you a cite for it being wrong? That two not three subs were dispatched is not relevant to the main point. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise I didn't mean to say it was your assertion, I meant to simply say the information was incorrect. The fact that the source got basic facts wrong is not indicative of a quality sources. And yes I do have a cite - and have just corrected the article. Lawrence Freedman (15 August 2007), The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Volume 1: The Origins of the Falklands War, Routledge, pp. 202–203, ISBN 978-0-415-41912-3, retrieved 5 February 2012. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to go over old arguments again. This issue has gone through numerous discussions, with the same arguments being rehashed over and over. I don't want to just open another forum for discussion, as that will undoubtedly lead to the same stalemate that brought us here in the first place. Therefore, I would like to simply assess whether an RfC on the issue would be a good idea. I think that, if we are to have one, it needs to cover all military conflict infoboxes, and not just be about the Falklands War. What do people think about having an RfC on the way leadership is presented on military conflict infoboxes? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I will also insist that anyone wishing to contribute to this Mediation Cabal who has not yet done so first signs an acceptance of the ground rules set out above. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We've not heard not much here in the past few days. My current interpretation of the current consensus over at the Falklands War talk page is that Margaret Thatcher should be included in the British leaders section. However, it would be good if we could come to a final agreement here about what should be done, both on the article itself and in general. I have proposed an RfC on how military history infoboxes display leadership, but would like to hear the opinion of the parties involved. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies ItsZippy, I've signed my name above. My thoughts on a general RFC are about 7 comments up - I don't really have anything more to add, although I'm slowly sliding more towards the "not needed" stance. As you might have guessed, I see no need for a specific RFC on this one article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Steve. I'd like to hear from other parties regarding views on an RfC (or, as Steve mentioned, just a discussion) for the issue of military conflict infoboxes in general. It would be helpful if anyone else involved could indicate their position on this issue so that we can either move on or initiate such a discussion in the relevant place. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see gross generalisations to be particularly helpful in deciding content. Too often we see guidelines applied rigidly as rules to be obeyed. Classic example here, a general guideline is applied as a rule and people refuse to have a sensible conversation about the specifics of this conflict. So no I don't see a general discussion on military conflict infoboxes to be particularly helpful, it seems more a way to deflect from the direct discussion needed on this topic. IMHO Wee Curry Monster talk 19:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible RfC wording

Here's a first draft:

"How should the British leadership of the Falklands War be expressed in the infobox? Should it only name Margarent Thatcher, refer to the leadership as a 'War Cabinet', or list the political and military leaders involved in the conflict?"

How does that look? Feel free to post alternatives. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a few comments, its optional whether to include political leaders in the infobox. And also without context the comment about War Cabinet is meaningless to most people who will comment. There should be a comment about collective responsibility and the fact that Thatcher did not act alone. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how about this alternative?

"Should the political leadership of the Falklands War be included in the infobox? If so, should it only name Margarent Thatcher, refer to the leadership as a 'War Cabinet', or list the political and military leaders involved in the conflict?"

Is that better? Feel free to provide your own wording if you wish. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest a few words about Cabinet Government in the UK. War Cabinet explains it well and Freedman has some text that explains how decisions were made. I can supply a reference if needed. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to that.

May I suggest:

“ Should the political leadership of the Falklands War be included in the infobox? If so, how best should the collective responsibility of Cabinet Government be represented. Is it sufficiently descriptive to mention solely the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher or should there be mention of the War Cabinet which made decisions collectively ”

Is that not better? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving forwards

Ok, this has been static for a little while, so I would like to move forwards now. So far, it seems that those who have commented do not want a wider discussion on the issue, although not many have commented, so this could change. I would now like to determine whether we think a full discussion on this specific issues is necessary, and how it should be conducted. I want to hear from as many sides as possible before launching into a full discussion again. If the consensus seems to be that a full discussion is unnecessary, then we won't try to pursue it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Side Issue - Personalising the dispute

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm slightly irritated by Sturmvogel66 personalising matters, I refrained from doing so deliberately as it is counter productive - and he is certainly not without sin in escalating a minor disagreement into a dispute - including edit warring instead of following WP:BRD. Can I ask that this stop and the relevant remarks stricken. Blaming me for his error? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I made no errors of fact. My mistake was in an edit summary. You blew that way out of proportion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC) [1] Your earlier comment, including the cry BS as a cogent logical argument and an acknowledgement of a lack of knowledge over the subject. [2] Your comment "RM all but heads of state and military commander", Thatcher was not head of state, I simply explained why you were wrong. Acknowledging one's mistakes is neither a character flaw, nor a sign of weaknesses. But continuing to blame others, well I can't be bothered any more. Just cut the finger pointing OK and focus on the content discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Sure, calling BS upon entering the discussion wasn't the best move, however appropriate. But none of the diffs that you provided show any ignorance of the topic, which means that you're still deliberately mischaracterizing my changes in the most insulting manner possible. And your quote above is my edit summary where I removed all but the heads of gov't and the military leadership from the infobox, despite making an admitted mistake in the edit summary. I'm still puzzled why that set you off as it was only an edit summary and did not match my action of removing the War Cabinet and junta members while leaving the heads of gov't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Calling BS not only wasn't the best move, it was completely inappropriate. As this is my final comment on the matter you are of course welcome to have the last word but I note that twice now instead of commenting on content you've instead continued to justify personalising matters. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, this discussion must remain focused on the content, not the conduct of other users. I am going to hide the above comments and request that whatever has gone on before is forgotten. We are here to come to a resolution about the content of the article, that is all. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)