Jump to content

Talk:Falklands War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.149.55.54 (talk) at 10:37, 30 October 2017 (→Margaret Thatcher in Lead: Better wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateFalklands 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
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
November 20, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

The statement "Ewen Southby-Tailyour gave a direct order for the men to leave the ship and go to the beach. The order was ignored." is unsourced. I added a citation needed tag, pointing out that a claim of insubordination is a serious one and must be appropriately sourced. The tag was removed with the somewhat amusing motivation "rv well known incident, uncontroversial fact". If the fact is well known and uncontroversial it should be easy to source it. The unsourced claims of a WP editor (User:Wee_Curry_Monster in this case) have zero probatory value. I am going to re-instate the citation needed tag. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@84.73.134.206: It's not unreasonable to request a source for this. I didn't see anything obvious on google. Southby-Tailyour is an author so maybe he's said something, although that's not a secondary source. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Requesting a reliable source for this very serious claim of insubordination is precisely what I did by adding a citation needed tag. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of demanding that others spoon feed you, why not instead get of your lazy backside and do some research? It will take a work of moments to do a bit of research to find that Ewan Southby-Tailor did tell the senior officers of the Welsh Guards to get their men off the ship but they refused opting to wait to be moved. The idea of insubordination is entirely your own invention, both officers were of equal rank. Or don't bother and leave it for someone else to do it for you. Do you really think tagging on articles is useful? I'll give you a clue, his book is called "Reasons in Writing", And yes as noted in ny edit summary the incident is well known and uncontroversial but don't worry I'll do what you demand and add a completely unnecessary citation to satisfy your bloody ego. Just wait till Thursday when I return. In the mean time feel free to improve the encyclopedia by actually writing an article. WCMemail 22:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the episode were true, both the disobeying soldiers and the hapless officer whose orders were blatantly disobeyed would bear a serious blemish. Unless rock-solid evidence (far more solid than the rambling recollections of an involved party) can be provided, the claim amounts to slander on WP. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to look up WP:OR and WP:SYN, you've invented this tale of insubordination. I take that to be a refusal to do your own research. So you really think slapping tags on articles demanding others fix stuff is helping build n encyclopedia? WCMemail 08:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The likely invented tale of insubordination ("The order was ignored") is currently on the WP page. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher in Lead

Just removed the addition of Margaret Thatcher in the lead, I think this smacks of lead fixation. Bringing it here to discuss. WCMemail 15:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Wee Curry Monster, according to many sources the Falklands War (led by Thatcher) was a pivotal event in British history, it changed the course of the world, and both Thatcher and the war had an indisputable effect during the end of the Cold War..take a look...Thatcher and the Falklands, How Margaret Thatcher's Falklands gamble paid off and the influence of Thatcher in the Cold War, In my point of view, this is enough evidence to include Thatcher in the Lead, she had the main role behind the conflict and became the "winner" after the war finished. In my view Thatcher used the war only as a vehicle to increase her low popularity at the time, she didn't care about all the innocents killed, children, and the deep crisis in Argentina after the conflict; despite all that, she "played" the main role during the conflict, and Thatcher should be included in the Lead section.FinalPoint1988 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're relying on newspapers and whilst not unreliable tabloid newspapers, wikipedia would prefer academic sources for claims of this nature. You're also writing from your POV, your own opinion and looking for sources to back you up. This isn't enough evidence as you put it to include Thatcher in the lead and at least one person, me, disagrees with you and considers it lede fixation. Now per WP:BRD you're supposed to discuss this and reach a consensus view, not steam roller your personal opinions straight back into the article. I would appreciate a self-revert. In addition, please do not ping me when you reply, if I start a talk page discussion I will check back. WCMemail 21:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your request will be attended per WP:CIVIL-WP:BRD and 'cause I see that you are not a disruptive editor. I see your point, and I found these academic/reliable sources The Politics of the Thatcher Revolution: An Interpretation of British Politics 1979-1990, Government Popularity and the Falklands War: A Reassessment (Cambridge), Margaret Thatcher: From grocer’s daughter to Iron Lady The life of Margaret Thatcher – timeline, Margaret Thatcher: A Life and Legacy (Oxford University Press), all of them explain the Importance and Pivotal Role of Thatcher during the Falklands War, the conflict can't be understood without her actions, and her absence from the lead content is something Incomprehensible; but we need more opinions to reach a consensus, by the way..what is your reason for which you think Thatcher shouldn't be included in the Lead section and your opinion of those academic articles. Greets and happy editing FinalPoint1988 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Falklands War didn't change the course of world history as you have claimed. Can I ask whether you have the sources you just listed? I looked at the first none and it doesn't back up the claims you were making. I can't see the second. The BBC article doesn't back up the edit you wished to make, it does note rather simplistically " As a result her popularity with the public soared and she gained respect and strength abroad." Neither does the Guardian article "British forces recapture Port Stanley. Argentina surrenders in what is seen as a resounding victory for Margaret Thatcher, confirming her "Iron Lady" nickname." And funny neither does your final cite. I don't agree that the conflict can't be understood by her actions. Decisions were taken collectively by the War Cabinet, she did not operate in a presidential role as many imagine and the article has always rather neglected that. I don't see her absence from the lead as incongruous, the lead should reflect the article content summarising the subject, the impact on Thatcher's career is effectively tangential to the focus of the article. It may belong on the Margaret Thatcher article but not here. WCMemail 00:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without the Falklands War, the permanence/re-election of Thatcher in 1983 as Prime Minister wouldn't have been possible, therefore, the well-known team Reagan-Thatcher, (the greatest leaders in the Western World and one of the responsibles of the Iron Courtain collapse during the late 80s-early 90s) would have never existed, well, on the other hand, the Falkland War lead cites "...the Conservative Party was re-elected in 1983..." as a consequence of the victory in the Islands, actually, Thatcher was the leader of the party, in fact she was re-elected, she obtained all the benefits of the Falklands victory, and since such victory against Argentina in the summer of 1982, she became one of the most important Heads of State during the past century..well those are our POVs, we need more opinions on the matter to reach consensus...FinalPoint1988 (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people would actually disagree with you about the re-election of Thatcher in 1983. Her ratings had begun to improve as the economy began to recover and the Labour party committed electoral suicide with its lurch to the left under Michael Foot. She would have re-elected even without the Falklands factor. Nor was the UK that important in terms of the Iron Curtain collapse, the US simply outspent the Soviet Union to the point it could no longer maintain its military regime. Anyway, seems about time we allowed others to comment eh? WCMemail 09:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

add in the Gang of Four drawing elements of labour party to the newly created Social Democrats in alliance with Liberals affecting the moderate left vote. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can speculate as to what caused the 1983 general election result until the cows come home. It is clear that the Falklands were a factor, but as WCM and Graeme note it's far from obvious - even somewhat fanciful - to suggest that "without the Falklands War, the permanence/re-election of Thatcher in 1983 as Prime Minister wouldn't have been possible".

I also note that the UK has a parliamentary form of government, not a presidential form of government. It is easy to project modern leader-driven politics on to previous elections when this is not necessarily accurate. I do not accept that "actually, Thatcher was the leader of the party, in fact she was re-elected", i.e. that it was Thatcher and not the Conservative government that was re-elected. The sources you cite do not imply such a position.

I see a lot of arguments in favour of inclusion based on POV here, but little hard fact. FinalPoint1988 argues "In my view Thatcher used the war only as a vehicle to increase her low popularity at the time, she didn't care about all the innocents killed, children, and the deep crisis in Argentina after the conflict", with an edit summary that accuses her of "genocide". The fact that the user makes such claims, that are so obviously nonsensical to anyone with even the vaguest handle on the facts, significantly damages his/her credibility in my eyes.

Because I have seen no argument that I find convincing to include this text, I am inclined to oppose inclusion. This is lede fixation. Kahastok talk 11:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, finally a consensus is reached, although I disagree with her exclusion from lead...Why include the Conservative Party re-election in the lede and not the Thatcher/Prime Minister re-election...absurd in my POV, it was not a question of "lede fixation", it was a matter of including the most important factors involved in the conflict??, on the other hand, (just a POV in that part of the world).. for Argentines, Thatcher was responsible of one of the most heinous crimes against humanity, most of the Argentine casualties were underage soldiers, besides housewives and children were killed..(you can find such information through Google Argentina) BBC Asesina de Argentinos, Murió una asesina de argentinos: Margaret Thatcher, Thatcher supports Pinochet, as you can see, "Not so obviously nonsensical"; well, anyway, I will respect the consensus FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FinalPoint, let me get this right? Argentina invaded another countries lands and caused this war. They then sent underage soliders to engage in the war they caused. These underage soliders were killed by their opponents, and this fact is Thatchers fault!! Way to go, that is some made up trail of events there. Plus the deep crisis in argentian after the war was also her fault? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but I would love you to tell us all please?

The Falklands War was the tipping point that caused the overthrow of the military dictatorship in Argentina and led to the return to democracy in that country.
The biggest effect however was in correcting misconceptions held in some parts of the world that the British would not go to war in any circumstances, as had been implied by certain other UK political parties of the time. The resultant conflict down South as a result had great importance for the Cold War and in the Soviet/Warsaw Pact view of the BAOR in particular.
The Falklands War was a key factor in getting Thatcher's government re-elected however it was in-effect a poll win by default, as the main opposition party had made itself unelectable, and had effectively committed electoral suicide by its support of CND and the policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament during the height of what was obvious to everyone a dangerous time. This was the time of SS-20's, Cruise Missiles, and Greenham Common. Elections are decided by the millions of 'floating voters', not by card-carrying party members who's own political hobby-horses may well be of little or no interest to the rest of the population, and which in the CND case, may be viewed by them as positively dangerous.
The party's continuation of these policies, and the continuing electing of completely non-credible leaderships, ensured that the Conservatives remained in Government for the remaining years until 1997, by which time the said opposition party had been taken over by a right-wing Tory clone who had joined the party merely for career reasons, and who would later, when the resulting new, transformed, right-wing party was eventually re-elected, take the country into what many believed was another illegal war - the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands had been unlawful.
In consolation, it was well known within MI5 that the relevant political party, CND, and the Greenham Common women, had been infiltrated by the KGB, GRU, and the Stasi, if so, these three organisations' operations must go down in history as notable cases of 'shooting oneself in the foot', as the effect of their operations had exactly the opposite result to that desired, effectively ending any hope the Soviets had of a left-leaning, pro-nuclear disarmament UK government for what was to be, in retrospect, the remainder of the Cold War.
And in reply to the earlier poster if the Argentinians hadn't invaded British Territory in an unprovoked attack then none of the Argentinian soldiers or sailors would have been harmed, except possibly by their own side.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falklands_War&oldid=807830691"