Talk:1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


june 23, 2005

I´ve never read anything about that tree argentine commandos that are supposed to be the first POW´s of that war. It´s not mentioned in any book. Where does that information comes from?

This article should be moved to 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands to disambiguate from the previous invasion in 1833. Ejrrjs | What? 14:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I Agree -Mariano 12:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As there was no objection to renaming the article for over 2 weeks, I will move the article from Invasion of the Falkland Islands to 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. -Mariano 11:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What's an amtrac? I tried to wikify it but amtrac is currently a redirect to the American rail network, Amtrak. --kingboyk 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a Amphibious Assault Vehicle - though the page it links to isn't the right model [1] shows them as LVTP-7's with .30 machine guns. Megapixie 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


This article would be immensely improved if it had a proper introduction and summary, perhaps one or two paragraphs. It should also have a battle box. The size and composition of forces and materiel are basic information that should be part of the standard introduction. One of the first questions I had was casualties, and that information wasn't easily found, so I took a comment from elsewhere on Wikipedia (Falklands War, I think), but that was reverted as unsourced. Well, somebody should find the correct information and put it in. If you don't like amateurs messing with your article, make it a decent article in the first place. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

pov tiltle[edit]

this article titile seem to be pov from first look so pl change it's name.User talk:Yousaf465

There is serious and overwelming pro-British POV o ALL pages relating to the Falklands.--Vintagekits 15:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be named as an invation, since a country cannot invade itself. Argentina cannot invade the Falklands, because they are part of Argentina, as she claims. However, it can be named "reclaim by force" or "occupation" of the Falkland. -- 03:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are POV issues with user's comments...

Besides which: The word 'Invasion' does not necessarily invoke POV on the Island's status; the D-Day landings (which included Free French troops) are often described as the 'Normandy Invasion'. Did the Free French not invade themselves? The article on the 1883 occupation by UK forces is also described as an invasion, which would seem to balance the books, at least so far as it identifies the word 'invasion' with a military action rather than a political imperative. The two articles work together in this regard. Given his clear POV issues, doesn't he mean 'Malvinas', anyway? ( 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

The British invasion of 1833 is esentially the same things as the Argentine invasion of 1982, therefore both articles should have a similar title and not the current ones thats calls the Argentines for "invasors" and legitimates the British occupation calling it re-assertion. In my opinion both articles should be caller Bristish/Argentine occupation of the Falklands Islands. Dentren | Talk 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
And your sudden appearence has nothing to do with the anniversary? Blatent POV push Ryan4314 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If you pop over to this section on the 1833 page, I think the discussion better fits there as that is the main bone of contention. Let's try to have a calm rational discussion. Narson (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that page has been deleted, it seems. (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Serious racist and name-calling remarks over edition[edit]

I was only trying to introduce a largely overdue infobox and other details according to old comments posted in the talk page. Some user, who considers the changes PoV, keeps editing, and, when I invited him to discuss the edition in this page, he responded with a racist slur (he called me "argie" and "ridiculous") instead of talking in a civil way. I only posted a pic in the infobox who shows an objective fact (i.e. the Marines surrendering during the Argentine invasion). Other Wikipedia battle boxes show defeated forces images (Battle of Singapore, Battle of Cape Spada and others) and nobody objects them as PoV. DagosNavy 00:07, 3 April 2007

Argie isnt racsist its standard shorthand for Argentinian. Pleasze [[WP:AGF|Assumen good faith. See here where you cvan confirm that Argie is not a rascist slur. You put your POV in then article and then accuse ediors who disagree with you of rascism. Styrikes me next you'll be saying the Falklands belong to Argentina. Ridiculouys described the pic not the editor, SqueakBox 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As for your bizarre claim that the Argentinians won, please source it, SqueakBox 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please slow down. This article was fine and you have distorted it with unsourced Pro-Argentina POV. I think we should revert back to the March 19th version. This is a disgrace and does nothing other than to promnote the erroneous Argentine claim to sovereignty, SqueakBox 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Argentina seized the Islands on April 2, 1982. This is a crystal-clear fact, not a claim. They lost the war at the end, nobody is discussing that, remember, the article is about the Invasion, not about the whole war. And nobody is claiming sovereignty, please tell me where in the text is something like that?. DagosNavy 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave the "result" question to a third party, if you like;I think however that the infobox and the pic must stand. DagosNavy 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is fine but the pic isnt. And hey if you took Argie as an insult my apologies. It certainly wasnt meant that way, SqueakBox 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Real numbers of FIDF was 32 and not just 25 and watch out for changes made by Betacommando[edit]

Hi it's El ORANGUTAN here, just writing to say I've reinstated the linke to the dramatisation of the fighting at Government House that was removed by a vandal (BETACOMMAND) for no reason at all really did he vandalise this page. Also I would like to point out in the following link ( and listed below about the FIDF remembering it's role, it reveals that there were 32 FIDF (not including volunteers civilians armed with rifles) that fought alongside Naval Party 8901 and not just 25 as the info box claims

Hi. The Telegraph note is worth to mention, but there are some innaccuracies about the numbers. The Anderson book seems to be a more reliable source, so I included the 25 FIDF members he accounts.

Note, for example, they (the newspaper) say that the Argentine Commandos were 120. I was reading Argentine sources the last 15 years of more, and they always mention 60-70 men landing from the ARA Santísima Trinidad.

I'am thinking to post this figure (for the Comandos Anfibios) to the infobox, but I have to found the book's names to cite them appropriately. I agree with you that the copyvio claimed by User Betacommand doesn´t apply to the YouTube video.

DagosNavy 00:17 April 17 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain the copyright violation. the BBC owns the rights to all of their broadcasts, Documentaries and productions. The youtube posting was not made with consent of the BBC, without consent of the BBC the video cant be posted. If it is posted without permission/consent it is violating the BBC's copyrights. Per wikipedia we cant link to such sites web pages. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not strictly true, we can link to YouTube the site but not to this particular video as broadcast by YouTube. try to find the original BBC article and link to that, SqueakBox 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Duncan Anderson book versus the book Graham Bound about real number of FIDF and militiamen[edit]

Graham Bound's book "Falkland Islanders At War" says there were 40 (yes forty) F.I.D.F personnel and armed volunteer civilians (including a Canadian) deployed at various points along Port Stanley on 2 April. I found that Anderson's book is full of errors (for example: he says the Argentineans at Wireless Ridge lost 100 dead when in fact the figure was around 30. He also had the audacity to claim an LVTP-7 amphibious armoured personnel carrier was destroyed and its crew killed by the Royal Marines outside Port Stanley when in fact Martin Middlebrook who originally believed this silly claim on part of the Royal Marines, established that the vehicle in question was only slightly damaged by machinegun fire. I can go on and on about the errors in Anderson's book... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

It's okay for Wiki to have links to Youtube provided the material is relevant to the article[edit]

I have restored the link to An Ungentlemanly Act for I believe that the link to the BBC film should be preserved because it is relevant to the article. If you read Wikipedia:External links/YouTube you will see that the team that wrote it recognize that Youtube has plenty of material which may be valuable as an external link within a Wikipedia article. Example: It clear that the British claimed to have shot dead several Amphibious Commandos outside Government House and that Royal Marines reported to have destroyed an amphibious armoured personnel carrier on the eastern outskirst of Stanley town and sunk a landing craft in the harbour. Therefore this is a clear case where the video in question is the best way to illustrate to skeptics what really happened on 2 April 1982 in the first day of the war. In the video you will see the Argentinean Amphibious Commando detachment outside Government House that had been reduced to just a dozen men moving from spot to spot and firing single rounds to make the defending Royal Marines believe that they were really outnumbered. It seems MEGAPIXIE and BETACOMMAND and others are determined to see the link to the YouTube video permanently removed claiming that it may be infringing copyright, but in reality they are trying to prevent students of the Falklands War discovering the truth of what happened in the battle between the members of Naval Party 8901 and the Argentinean Marines. Both are being vandals and would be standing on more solid ground if they could prove that the link was irrelevant to the article in which it appears, or otherwise not useful to Wikipedia. Everybody should read what Wikipedia has to say about External links/YouTube at [2] and restore the link if it is removed again.

I have removed the link again. It is clearly a copyright violation. Per policy Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works we cannot link to copyright violations. If you were linking to a BBC website I would have no problem including the link. Megapixie 07:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
FIBS on-air live reporting of the 1982 invasion, with excerpts from the BBC World Service News: [3] and [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


I hope people like DAGOSNAVY can help here. According to military historian Isidoro J. Ruiz Moreno the invasion was code-named 'Rosary' at the urging of the CO of the 25th Infantry Regiment, an extreme Roman Catholic whose fantatical devotion to the Catholic faith had made an indelible mark on the elite marine units. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronpillao (talkcontribs) 01:09:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Hi, I've already made the change in the title section, including Ruiz Moreno's reference. Yes, the definitive code name for the Operation was Rosario, and the landing is known under this name by all Argentine historians and official assessments.

DagosNavy 01:43, August 23 2007 (UTC)

How many marines?[edit]

The Royal Navy states that 85 marines were involved in the defense of South Georgia and the Falklands.
Another source (SmallWars) states that the Endurance carried 9 marines from NP9801 (in addition to its complement of 13, including one officer.), giving a total of 22 on South Georgia.
The same source gives the figure of 67 for the Falkland islands, but it is not clear if this includes Major Norman and Major Noott. Additionally, Jim Airfield (spelt quite differently in another source), an ex-Royal Marine Corporal, who had moved to the Falklands, appears to have joined them, been issued with weaponry, and fought along side them.
That source agrees with the figure of 2 officers and nine men from Endurance being in Stanley (i.e. 11) So the total strength of NP9801 would appear to have been 76 or 78 (depending whether the 67 listed as available to Governor Hunt included the two Majors or not (my own guess is that it would have).
This WP page on the invasion says there were 57 marines and 11 RN sailors on the Falklands, and an additional 22 sent to South Georgia. Presumably this would have been NP9801 plus the complement of 13 attached to the Endurance, implying that the "double strength" NP9801 would have had about 66 members.
Another User has repeatedly stated in the Talk section to another WP page that there were 80 marines.
The RAF, just to muddy the waters further, states on their website that 43 men from "new" NP8901, 25 from the "old" party, and 12 sailors were on the Falklands, with 9 further marines from the "old" party being sent to south Georgia.
So, take your pick - somewhere between 57 and 70 marines (including officers) plus 11 or 12 personnel from the Endurance on Stanley. Generally seems to be 22 going to South Georgia (9 from the Naval Party + 13 attached to Endurance), giving an overall figure of 77 to 92 marines in total. Perhaps the 85 figure from the Royal Navy has not counted some who were not involved in the fighting.
Oh, the fog of war !
Anybody got any views / sources on this ?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Another reference. Lady Thatcher, April 14th 1982, speech to Parliament, mentions 22 marines on South Georgia.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually what I said was that the nominal strength of NP8901 was 40 Royal Marines, NCO and officers. Justin A Kuntz 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding. Maybe (guesswork) there were 57 in Stanley, and more at other points on the island, plus the 22 on South Georgia. It bugs me a bit, because there should be a definitive answer to something this straightforward, and explanations for discrepencies. Does any one know if the (apparently) 13 marines attached to the Endurance count as part of NP8901, or are they extra?Mariya Oktyabrskaya 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Try Britains Small Wars, usually a pretty reliable eyewitness source. Justin A Kuntz 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That was one of the sources I used. Still no clearer.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 00:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Have just read the TELEX communication, which states that "FK: YES YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH THOUSANDS OF TROOPS PLUS ENORMOUS NAVY SUPPORT WHEN YOU ARE ONLY 1600 STRONG" -- 1600 strong? How is this any where near the 57 listed in the 'strength' section of this article? Clarification on this please. :) 14:24, 04 December 2010 (GMT)
It's obvious that the TELEX was counting the entire population of the Islands, not only the Armed Forces.--Darius (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Has anybody gained more insight into this issue? I did read this article for the first time now and was confused when looking at the numbers. If your read the section on forces involved, it states an initial number of 68 RM and 11 sailors which was reduced to 57 RM and 11 sailors when 22 RM went with Endurance to South Georgia. Could it be that it was 11 RM and 11 sailors, leaving 57 RM? Anyway, the section on forces involved and the fact box should be consistent. The issue raised by initiator of this thread still remains valid to me. The numbers are confusing, but I have no detailed knowledge of this issue, nor have I been able to find appropriate information. --Tolvte (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What about the 30 Argentine tradesmen taken hostage by the Brits?[edit]

I just finised about 1/2 an hour ago watching via YouTube the 12 parts of AN UNGENTLEMANLY ACT and it clearly shows Governor Rex Hunt ordering his men to round up all the Argentine civilian tradesmen once it became evident that the Argentines were going to seize the islands. What I most like about this B.B.C. production is that they consulted British military historian Martin Middlebrook and Argentine Rear-Admiral Carlos Busser to get the Argentine side of the story included and not have the movie tainted by British propaganda. It was awesome to see the Argentine Amphibios Commandoes portrayed as real professionals. I can now see that Military Governor Mario Menendez was put in the same ackward position like Rex Hunt when deciding whether to fight till the death in Stanley or surrender and save civilian and the life of many brave soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usedteabag (talkcontribs) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't hostage taking, that is detaining enemy citizens and happens alot in war time. Hostage would be if Hunt took them and threatened to execute them if the Argentine force didn't stop their invasion. Narson (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'am Argentinian, but I agree with Narson. The members of government-sponsored airlines LADE were not "tradesmen"; most of them (under the supervision of Vice-Commodore Gilobert, of the Argentinian Air Force) were gathering intelligence about the British garrison and defences during the weeks preceding the landings. So I guess that Mr. Hunt's decision was right. An Ungentlemanly act is, indeed, a fair, unbiased and accurate description of the Invasion, unfortunately never seen here in Argentina. I only object the Chilean accent of the 'Argentinians' :). I think the incident with LADE and other Argentinian companies employees should be added to the section Defence.

DagosNavy 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Last invasion of British territory?[edit]

I don't want to get into a debate over the word "territory", I was just trying to make a clear headline. I heard the speech Thatcher made to the cabinet after the invasion, the other day. In it she says this is first invasion of British territory in "many years" 9.05. Anyone know when the last was, or where I can find out? Ryan4314 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of the Channel Islands by Nazi Germany ? Any more recent ? Megapixie (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there has been invasions of British held territory since then (Suez for example) and quite a few uprisings in British territory (The Aden crisis etc). Oh and beating the occupation of the channel islands is probably that oddest and most unexplained fo invasions, the last flight of Rudolph Hess. One strange demented senior Nazi deliberatly crashing into the UK. Narson (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not to familiar with Suez, basically Egypt took over the Canal and there was British company there, that Britain "partly" owned, is that vaguely right? I don't think Aden and NI count as in "invasion" though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talkcontribs) 10:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As I say, Suez was territory held by the British but was not British territory (If you will accept the difference). Aden and NI were insurrections, yeah. I am sure some military somewhere buggered about with a British embassy (which is 'British soil') but in terms of major invasions, no, I can't think of any off the top of my head since the channel islands. Narson (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Several IRA attacks on British border outpost came from the Republic in a systematic way from 1971 until 1994, before and after the 1982 Invasion of the Falklands. DagosNavy 3:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See above comment, they were not an invasion. Justin talk 08:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, no invasion, but still an international border-crossing action

DagosNavy 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

An intertational border-crossing action by freedom fighters/terrorists... Not by forces authorised by a foreign state. --Dumbo12 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Argentinian image copyrights[edit]

Just saw the issue with the anon who kept removing the Argentinian photograph for not being PD.

Guys, I hardly dare break this to you, I really hate to do it, but...:

The anon may be right.

See [5], section "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978". The image may be PD in Argentina, but not in the US.

There was a cutoff point in US law in 1996. If a work was already PD in its home country before that date, it's now PD in the US too. That would presumably go for Argentinian photographs created before 1971, if Argentina has a 25y term. But if it only became PD in its home country after that, then the US rules kick in, not the home rules. And that means: 70 years after death of author. So, all the Argentinian photographs from 1982 would be out.

Copyright law sucks.

Fut.Perf. 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I figured it would be something strange to do with cross-border issues, as I couldn't work out any problems with licensing and the anon didn't seem to want to give any information. I wonder if anyone has a copy of the magazine to tell if it was printed wth a copyright info (As it was taken during a miliary occupation, it was almost certainly taken by a serving military person, at least if it is the surrender I think it was, and might be Argentine state copyright and released to PD therefore). I think we had better go to the previous image for the infobox.
Minor point, would it be different if it was a copyright of the Argentine government, more for my own curiosity. Narson (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the table I linked to, for these cases it doesn't make a difference if there was a copyright notice or not. Does Argentina have a rule similar to the US that all state products are PD? Fut.Perf. 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe so. Though I'm not sure if that was the case in the Junta period. I'll check online tommorow to see if I can find a web archive of the Argentine magazine that first published. Narson (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You might want to edit the Argentine Copyright template. According to the current one, the picture would be fine. If it is wrong, it needs to be fixed to avoid future confusion. I woul do it but I am somewhat wary of sticking my hand into the land of copyright templates. Narson (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hrm. Reading that linked table, it indicates that the 70 year one applies if the copyright had lapsed in the US due to failing to abide by US technical regulations (footnote 10)....not sure if it applies to ones that have been released in their own countries...I think we need advice from the foundation on that issue, because it is a pretty big shift in copyright rules if true. Narson (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Narson, I'm not sure you're looking at the right section in the table there. You need to go to the section "Works Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad", and then "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978". There, in the second row, it's dealing with cases "published either with or without copyright notice, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996". That applies here, because a 1982 photograph obviously wasn't yet 25 years old by 1996. For these cases, it says: "70 years after death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication". Footnote 10 is about a different set of cases altogether, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. 00:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
We currently use the Commons template for Argentine images and that template is full protected there, so editing would require a Commons admin.
I would agree on the last point. If what FPAS's interpretation is accurate this has wide-ranging implications for most if not all Wikipedias along with a goodly number of other Wiki projects. I've just been looking through Commons:Copyright tags and images currently tagged as PD from dozens of countries would be affected by such a change in policy and probably thousands of images - and I don't think I would be the only one who would prefer not to rely on any single user or even a user consensus to make that call. I think we need the Foundation to make the judgement. Pfainuk talk 22:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Commons already knows these issues, it's nothing new. Please look at just the page you quoted: Commons:Copyright tags, right at the top, under "Non-U.S. works". It says:
All works hosted at the Commons must be legal to publish in the United States. For non-U.S. "public domain" works, this means they must be in the public domain in both the non-U.S. source country and in the U.S., or there must be an explicit release of the work for the U.S. under a free license.
For non-U.S. works, please add one of the following tags in addition to an appropriate license tag [...]
The Argentina-specific tag only covers one half of the issue, by design. I agree there should be clearer warnings on the tag documentation pages that a US-specific argument sometimes has to be considered in addition to what the tag says. I keep forgetting this myself.
If you have doubts about what I'm saying (and, believe me, I'd love to be proven wrong in this case), you might want to ask at commons village pump or some such place. Fut.Perf. 23:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, darn is all I an say. I think this makes the previous infobox picture none PD and really shoots a few of our pics in the foot, as many argentine pics were used due to their PD status. So yes, I think we need to double check this pic wasn't Argentine state copyright, because it matters now. Narson (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Already checked it was taken by the offical Argentine Govenment photographer, confirmed on the IWM website using the negative number. The relevant information is already on the image talk page. Justin talk 08:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
To Narson: I looked around a bit more on commons. The good news is, they are apparently not planning to delete these cases right away; they say they are "trying to figure out how to deal with them" (see commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA) I've tagged a few images with this template. To Justin: I don't really see what role the identity of the photographer plays. I've seen no indication that Argentina has any rule comparable to the US {{PD-USGov}}. Fut.Perf. 08:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I was certain I'd seen a boiler template about works being in PD due to being Argentine Government. Thank you for the update FutPer (and the information).Narson (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hrm. Can't find it now, guess I was mistaken. Damn, Just realised his screws over all the post WW2 crown copyright stuff too. At least all the WW2 stuff will be fine. Narson (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm already working on that, as a short cut I simply asked Dagosnavy for the status and if he could provide a direct link. I'm pretty sure Narson is correct, as nestling in the dim recesses of my memory is that Argentina has similar laws to US {{PD-USGov}}. If that is the case then this eases the problem with Falklands War images as most were taken by service personnel. The only ones I can think of that would be different were the press agency photos of the surrender of the FIDF and NP 8901, which we haven't used as they were non-free. Justin talk 09:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, they arn't going to delete right off the bat, as FutPer has told us. We have time. The problem will be that so many pictures were moved to commons as they were labelled PD and some probably has a good fair use claim if they weren't PD anyway, but now will be deleted. Though it is an issue for commons to sort out I think. Might at least make people pause in the move to commons. Narson (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Let the Commons sort this out - we should be aware of it but they know what issues we (and lots of others) are likely to have. It might be worth getting offline copies of some of these so that if they do suddenly disappear we can put up NFCC-compliant versions of images like the Belgrano with a minimum of fuss (IANAL but I believe they're probably PD in the UK by virtue of being PD in Argentina anyway). Obviously if Argentina does have an equivalent to {{PD-USGov}} then much of the Falklands War stuff should be OK anyway, and we seem to have some time to sort things out. Pfainuk talk 10:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sadly UK doesn't matter a crap when it comes to wiki, the servers are held in the US so it is their law we have to be compliant with. Which is further complicated by state laws and other such fun. Narson (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, my point was more that we should be prepared to replace the images locally if necessary, obviously in a manner that is NFCC-compliant if we can't find evidence that they're free. Pfainuk talk 16:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the main priority now is to try and find a PD pic for the info box. I'm thinking there must be one of Argentine marines in general? Or of the Junta? Or of Stanley? Narson (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
For info I had a comment from DagosNavy that he thinks Argentine copyright law would allow us to use the Argentine Government imagery. As the current image is an official one, that would mean we wouldn't need to change it. Also as they're all PD pre-1996 most of the images should be OK. I guess commons wouldn't be able to host them but if I'm correct the en wiki can. Lets wait and see what DagosNavy digs up, it could be as simple as changing the copyright tag on the imagery for the project. Justin talk 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. We're not in any hurry. FWIW if they are free enough to be considered "free" on, they're free enough for the Commons - and vice versa. I've just been looking for alternative images on the Commons and Flickr and while I may have overlooked something I couldn't find any free images of the actual invasion or anything related to it outside those marked with the Argentine PD tag. OTOH, there are a few free images of Stanley as it is now. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

British losses[edit]

Can anyone put up the number of killed/wounded British troops in the casualty box with a referance? Many tanks.

I'm not sure any were killed in the Argentine Invasion...all the dying occured later in the British re-taking of the islands. Though that is as far as I can remember, I may be wrong. --Narson ~ Talk 08:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You are right, Narson. There were no British casualties during the invasion of the Falklands. Just a RM wounded on April 3 by shrapnel from the secondary guns of a corvette in the Georgias.--Darius (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:British Surrender.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:British Surrender.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Amtrack-82.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Amtrack-82.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Amtrack-82.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Source for telex conversation?[edit]

The reference given for the Informing London section appears to be in error. To start with, the ISBN belongs to a different cited source, and then when I try searching for the author and title listed, I can't even verify that the book in question exists. Does anyone have an accurate reference for this? Lmeop (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I had the same issue when trying to source the quote -- I can't find any evidence that a book of that author and title was ever published, and while the Graham Bound book on the Falklands that has the ISBN may very well have the conversation, I don't have a copy. I plan to re-source it to this contemporaneous New York Times article: (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I located a copy of the American edition of the Graham Bound book that matches the ISBN, and the conversation is not in it, so I think the NY Times link I have re-sourced it to is preferable. (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're correct, its either a fake or a reference to the 1982 version of this book: Duncan Anderson (2002). The Falklands War 1982. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-422-1.  I believe its also used elsewhere as a reference, a clean up may be in order. WCMemail 08:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Marshall Cavendish did put out a 14 issue pamphlet series called "The Falklands War", but it was edited by Peter Way. It also looks like they repackaged the content into a book for the 25th anniversary. So it's possibly a badly formatted cite of an article within the pamphlet series, or a quote of a Andrew Duncan within an article in the series. So other, better formatted cites of the same name and publisher may be fine. But it still shouldn't have that ISBN. (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Numbers of Argentine Casualties[edit]

The numbers are listed as 1 killed and 3 wounded, but at another part of the article it says that two British snipers killed and wounded a number of Argentine soldiers. What's the story with this? Did the Argentinian government play down the number of men they lost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some suggestions that this took place. At KE hospital Dr Alison Bleaney recorded 2 dead and 1 critically injured removed by the Argentines. However, wikipedia works based on sources, which all say 1 killed and 3 wounded. I believe there is a new book coming out this year that tackles this. WCMemail 08:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

According to British Military Ricky D Phillips at least 83 enemy invaders were killed and double that number wounded during Operation Rosario. (I can count where 83 individuals fell and the real figure was, in my estimation and in that of the Royal Marines, at least 100. “The First casualty” – The book ‘They’ don’t want you to read! (Book Review) He also established with interviews with key Argentinian Marine Commanders that at least three landing craft/vehicles were destroyed with no survivors emerging.--Chattaboxi (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the book they don't want you to read is not yet published, according to the web page its being crowd funded, which means it is a WP:SPS and as such not considered a reliable source for inclusion on wikipedia. You may take this to WP:RSN if you wish. WCMemail 12:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Number in Combat"[edit]

An editor has decided based on his own research to add the claim that only 90 Argentine soldiers engaged British forces. This is a ridiculous claim to make, at any one time not all soldiers would be engaged in combat so it could have been a dozen soldiers at Governement House on the British side for example. Its further ridiculous since the commander of the Argentine forces is well known for stating they thought if they came in great numbers it would deter the British from defending the islands. The person responsible has since revert warred their changes into the article. Would be grateful for a revert back to last stable consensus version. WCMemail 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well the source does not say 90 men in combat, it says 90 commandos landed at Mullet creek for a decapitation operation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)