Talk:Falklands War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Falklands War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. 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

Reverted edit[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. (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@ 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)
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. (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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. (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
The likely invented tale of insubordination ("The order was ignored") is currently on the WP page. (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher in Lead[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)

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)

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?

External links modified[edit]

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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Adding other countries as combatants[edit]

I think the regular contributors to this page may be slightly tetchy at the perpetual attempts to add other nations as "combatants". At various points, we've had Libya, Israel, Peru, Cuba etc added on the Argentine side. At other points, all the members of the EU, the US, NZ etc added on the British side. There were only two combatants, the UK and Argentina and the usual refrain "it's sourced so it MUST go again" really doesn't cut the mustard. They're not sourced as combatants, they're sourced as providing some form of aid. Consensus has always been not to and we do not do so with other conflicts. WCMemail 08:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Something the literature on the war (including the very detailed British official history) makes clear is that all the countries who supported Argentina and the UK took great care to avoid becoming a combatant, or even being seen as being aligned too closely with the one side. An odd feature of the war was that most of Argentina's supporters had good relations with the UK, and vice versa, and wanted to maintain this situation to the extent possible. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Concur with WCM and Nick-D. Another point is that Cuba was listed under Material Support. We have an article which Material support redirects to, and there is no way MartinKassemJ120's addition of Cuba was remotely relevant to that. Moriori (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
For much of the conflict the US (i.e., in the person of Al Haig) was actively trying to persuade the Argentinians to accept mediation talks with the UK as the UK Task Force headed south, and so other countries tried not to come down in support of either side.
The term 'combatants' refers to fighting and AFAICS only the UK and Argentina actually did any fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)