Talk:Falklands War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falklands War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Falklands War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Not kept
November 20, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 12, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former featured article candidate

Military history: British / European / South America Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	South American military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on .

Archived

Talk page was a little long so I archived it. Justin talk 12:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28,000 men

Why were my edits reverted, when Britain obvisly sent 28,000 men to the islands? (http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=falklands+war%2B28%2C000+&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=) /Snillet 15:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did put it in an edit summary. See WP:RS, the source you quoted would not satisfy that criteria. You're welcome to put in an edit supported by the appropriate citation. Justin talk 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry! /Snillet 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, its a good idea to generally assume good faith for other editor's actions. There is usually a good reason for their edits. Vandalism is usually the obvious exception. Justin talk 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the "British victory"?

Can we please remove the words "British victory" from the result section. As per the War of 1812 it is clear that it was a status quo ante bellum and that Argentina had emphasised to Britain how much it claimed the Malvinas (hence giving them victory in a sense). Agian, I also direct you to the Vietnam War where the US wern't "defeated", they simply withdrew to a situation where they neither gained or lost territory themselves. Please learn that only the US can win wars (and they havn't lost any, ever). Please change please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.2.104 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to make a WP:POINT. This war is not similar to the war of 1812 as a whole in any but the most simplistic reading of the war. Narson 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Argentina invaded the islands - the British recaptured them. Argentinian forces did not withdraw to the island - they put up their hands and surrendered to the British. The Islands remain British to this day, over two decades later. In what sense could this possibly be considered to be anything other than a complete victory for the British? BobThePirate 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing agains't the result being a British victory but decisive is wrong, plain word. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a long standing consensus text, strong opinions do not over-ride consensus. I have reverted your changes for now. Justin talk 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result as it is stated in the previous version is not a standing fact. Claiming such is absurd. Also, interestingly enough, this "decisive victory" is mentioned in Spanish version of the article, which happens to be featured - unlike this one. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have politely pointed out to you, the text is a long standing consensus agreement, agreed after much debate. It isn't actually my version. I will revert once more to the consensus text, please do not revert again. I am asking you not to edit war over this, as I noted earlier strongly held opinions do not trump consensus. Thank you. Justin talk 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was decisive, the Argentine forces surrendered, Britain got to keep its penguins, the military Junta toppled not long after, it swept the government of the day to an election victory, the armed forces got the reprieve they wanted from the cuts....yes, there were losses, but in essence the entire Argentine force was 'lost'. As for what the spanish wikipedia has in their so-called FA, I tend to ignore it. Having read it over, it looks like it wouldn't pass GA tests here, let alone FA ones. Narson (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I should say that I have no real preference either way as to the inclusion of decisive, while I think it was a pretty solid victory in the end, I am certainly willing to entertain the notion of not having decisive in the infobox, however, I'd need some better reasoning to change my opinion than someone yelling 'absurd' over and over again. Narson (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The war did not occur to make a point, if it had been, then the defeat would not have lead to the end of the argentine military junta. It was an absoultely decisive victory for the British in every sense, and I challenge anyone to come up with a sound arguement otherwise. The argentines invaded the islands, the british recaptured them after a realatively one sided campaign and 2 and a half decades later, the islands are still british, and the argentines are not in a position to recapture them given the added military strength there. In addition to that there is the signal it sent globally, especially to Russia that large poorly-equipt conscript armies are unlikely to hold their ground against well trained, well equipt, professional soldiers. As above, this is just trying to make a Point WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 11:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]