Talk:Falklands War/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

British Prisoners

It says here that there were 115 British prisoners of war taken. I find two things wrong with this. If you look at the article 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, you will see that 114 Britons became prisoners. Only 96 of them were actual soldiers, the remaining ones civilians temporarily detained by the Argentines. Secondly, these figures do not include the 22 British Royal Marines taken prisoner during the Invasion of South Georgia. If we combine this with the British soldier captured during the Skirmish at Many Branch Point, I would have to say that 119 British military personnel were taken prisoner during the war.

Reenem (talk)

April 2nd: 57 Royal Marines, 11 Royal Navy & 23 Falkland Islands Defence Force (FIDF), April 3rd (South Georgia): 22 RM, May 21st: 1 RAF (Flt Lt Jeffrey Glover), June 10th (West Falkland): 1 SAS. That's what the hidden text is revealing. I have no idea how the numbers at the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands article were tallied. No Britons were killed, so they were all PoWs. 57+11+25 to 40=93 to 108. The figure 96-114 PoWs must be explained at the "1982 invasion of…" article, not here. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Invasion photos

Hi guys, would you mind commenting here regarding the photographers the Argentines used on the invasion day, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My talk page is not an appropriate venue; the discussion is here. Эlcobbola talk 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle Maps

I found these two PD maps. The article is already image heavy, but maybe we can use them somewhere.The Illusional Ministry (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, where did you find them, they're from Battle Atlas of the Falklands War, which is not PD. Justin talk 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry my bad, they're not, though similar in style. Second one is inaccurate as Coventry was sunk off Pebble Island. Justin talk 23:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the first one should be nice addition to British naval forces in the Falklands War --Jor70 (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


I just removed Pablo Carballo from the list but Im now in doubt. Is this supposed to list top commanders at the time of the conflict isnt it ? Because some AR people are listed there with their final ranks and not what they have at that moment. --Jor70 (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you were right to do that, its purely for top commanders. Justin talk 12:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just removed Margaret Thatcher. MT in her role as Prime Minister was a political leader, she appointed military leaders to command the operation, she had no military command authority. In Britain the Prime Minister exercises political control over the military only by means of the Royal Prerogative, in other words on behalf of the Queen. It is the Queen that is "commander in chief" not the Prime Minister and military appointments are made by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. Marlarkey (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As this is a global issue see also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 72#Commanders in War articles --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but if you'd looked you'd have seen that I'm already aware of that - not that is sheds any light on the topic as yet. Marlarkey (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the link was addressed to anyone else but you in order to avoid repeating this discussion. I actually found the link by looking at your contributions at Talk:Iraq War#Commanders. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont know UK, but Galtieri must stay because was his idea to create a garrison of 12000 troops under protest of the other generals. --Jor70 (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support, keep Galtieri in, but MT out. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Galtieri was a commissioned officer and head of the military as well political leader of the country. He combined both roles. He was in de facto command of the forces and therefore it is valid that he is included. Marlarkey (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From Samuel Salzman:

I think that Margaret Thatcher should be a commander, as she made a large number of decisions directly affecting the war- such as the sinking of the Belgrano. However I'll leave that up to you as you are probably more experienced than me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Salzman (talkcontribs) 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Skirmish at Many Branch Point

I've removed this from the article, it was a minor unit skirmish that does not warrant mention in an overview article. Please don't add it again. Justin talk 21:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, to newcomers, we've been trying to bring the Falklands War article down in size, for ease of reading. The Skirmish at Many Branch Point is covered in it's own article. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I read the article for the first time today. In my opinion, some of the content is over-summarized and difficult for new readers (like me) to understand. The following are things that confused me on my first reading:
  • In the Initial British response to the invasion subsection, you should say something, even in a summary, about setting up the Maritime and Total Exclusion Zones.
  • In Black Buck raids:
    • The article says "opened with the "Black Buck 1" attack (of a series of five) on the airfield at Stanley". Suggest: "opened with the "Black Buck 1" attack (of a series of five) on the airfield at Stanley by Vulcan bombers from Ascension Island.
    • I think there should be a paragraph break between "...precious tanker resources." and "The raids did minimal damage..." to differentiate the actual attacks from their effects.
    • There is confusion between the first sentence "attack (of a series of five) on the airfield at Stanley" and the last paragraph "Of the five Black Buck raids, three were against Stanley Airfield...". Was it 3 or 5? And this sentence belongs in the first "attack" paragraph.
  • In Escalation of the air war:
    • The first paragraph says "compelled to overfly British forces". Suggest: "compelled to overfly British naval forces".
    • You should say near the beginning of this subsection something like "whereas the British had Harrier Jump Jets from the HMS Invincible".
    • The second paragraph says "were firing at Argentine defences near the islands". Argentine ground defences, naval defences, air defences or a combination? Also what is "a late pop-up profile"?
    • If the fourth paragraph ("Combat broke out between...") is part of the incident described in the third paragraph ("Meanwhile, other Argentine aircraft..."), there should not be a paragraph break. If they're separate, you should so state ("In a separate incident, combat broke out...").
  • More later.
Because of your concern about the expansion of the article, I decided not to be bold in this case. :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sun and its headlines

I have looked at the discussions in the archives and they don't seem to have resulted in a consensus. The issue I have is that the Greenslade article, whilst stating that the headlines were (in his opinion) xenophobic and jingoistic, does not explain WHY they were xenophobic and jingoistic. I do not have the Harris book so I'm unable to check what it says (perhaps some page numbers could be added, to help others with checking the reference). I suggest a compromise where the Harris and Greenslade references are retained but the paragraph dealing will the Sun headlines is re-worded somewhat. We could perhaps use the Douglas reference to mention that the Gotcha headline was later considered by Kelvin Mackenzie himself to be going too far.

My suggestion -

The Sun became controversial for its headlines during the war[1]. The headlines 'Gotcha' and 'Stick this up your junta' in particular were considered by Harris[2] and Roy Greenslade[3], former employee of the Sun, to be 'xenophobic' and 'jingoistic'. The 'Gotcha' headline, was recognised by Kelvin Mackenzie, the editor of The Sun at the time, to be inappropriate and he had it changed for later editions of the paper[3][4].

I've tried for a compromise of sorts, so that the interpretations of xenophobia and jingoism are not implied to be a universal truth (which is how I read it), but still have support from fairly reliable sources. What does everyone think?Rtdixon86 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

From time to time people are trying to whitewash The Sun, I don't know why. It wasn't only the "Gotcha" headline that was 'xenophobic' and 'jingoistic'. If you are able to look at The Sun during the Falklands War you'll see that it was 'xenophobic' and 'jingoistic'. 'Stick this up your junta' was another headline. Other British media were far from The Sun so it's not just because the times were different like in World War Two where the whole press was pro-war. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It hasn't been proven that being in favour of defending one's country's territory in a localised war is xenophobic or jingoistic. If they'd argued in favour of invading Argentina preemptively or "just to see the look on those dirty Argies' faces", you'd have a case. Maybe "Kill an Argie and win a Metro"? But they didn't publish either of those.
That's broadly why very few (if any) news pieces refer to the Sun as 'jinogistic' and 'xenophobic'. Citing 'Harris' isn't good enough (whilst Robert Harris is notable, it does not give a page, which would actually make it verifiable), and citing an opinion piece (Greenslade) as fact is incorrect. It ought to be attributed, as in the suggested paragraph above. Bastin 08:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Necessary Evil - I was not trying to 'whitewash' the Sun. I was only suggesting a way of settling an editorial issue which does not seem to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction yet.
Could you please tell me if my suggested change to the article would in any way make it worse (i.e. is any information being removed)?
Also is it unreasonable to interpret 'Stick this up your junta' as a simple display of contempt for a belligerent military dictatorship? Is this unambiguosly xenophobic? If so, how so? Rtdixon86 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between being in favour of defending ones sovereign territories and how the Stun tend to express that. Their editorial position does tend towards the xenophobic on a wide range of issues, I have to say that I don't entirely get why there is a move to tone down the description.
Personally I find the wording above to be quite weaselly, but that's to be expected, I don't imagine that there are any credible sources to suggest that it wasn't particularly xenophobic, so we have to twist the language to excuse their editorial line.
FWIW they do tend to express a nationalistic position quite a distance from how the military would generally position their understanding of the OPFOR. There is little value in de-humanising the opposition to the extent that they do, as it gets in the way of effective military action.
ALR (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
What views of the Sun's are nationalistic? Read the introduction to the article on nationalism, and please explain how the Sun's editorial positions reflect that. Bastin 16:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
ALR - Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "Personally I find the wording above to be quite weaselly". I accept there may possibly be some shortcomings with how I have worded my suggested paragraph, so could you tell me which forms of weasel words found at[[4]] I have included, so I can make any necessary revisions.
Everyone - I'm only trying to make the best of the sources. I have mentioned and cited for the controversy which was generated by the editorial stance in the first sentence, this can be elaborated on with further sources, would be anyone be willing to help find some?
The Greenslade article is an opinion piece, so I think it should be directly attributed to him in the text. Does anyone think this is completely wrong as an approach? Could anyone direct me to information on how to work with opinion pieces? Again, the Greenslade piece could be reinforced by other sources, if anyone would like to help. I'm happy to keep the Harris reference. However, I think a page number might be required, to help other editors verify the claim.
One final thing, please bear in mind that I'm not trying to take sides with The Sun, I just want to make a genuine effort to improve what I think is a section which has some problems. Rtdixon86 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
As an analyst when I read a passage that makes several attributions in that way it serves to obfuscate something. It lacks elegance and sounds contrived, hence a bit weasely. Quite happy to acknowledge that is a, subjective view rather than making reference to the wikifantasy rules. There are a number of systemic failures in Wikipedia that tend to encourage such clumsiness, so it's an observation
ALR (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been able to find some extra sources which support the 'xenophobic' and 'jingoistic' claims against the Sun, so I'm now satisifed that the claims against the Sun have weight. I have also found some information on the Sun's negative attitudes towards the BBC, amongst others. Including this extra information will require some rewording which you can see here [[5]]. Would it be OK to Be Bold and make the changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdixon86 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-Free content

The image File:The Sun (Gotcha).png is used in this article under a non-free content criteria, but it may not meet the rationale needed for it. First of all, that section is about the sinking of the Belgrano, not about the the way the press handled such events. In fact, there is already a section for that in the article, "Cultural impact", which is already ilustrated by another non-free image. Used at that section, a file meets the requirement of being used to ilustrate the publication of the headline; used at a section devoted to the events themselves, it is merely decorative. Even more, it "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media", which is one of the things a non-free file must not do.

Have in mind the text in the template: "If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." It is a logical extension to apply the same idea on an article about an event, that is being represented in the cover.

I should also point that other articles on modern wars, that received huge press coverage, like Iraq War or Vietnam War, are completely free of non-free content. And yes, they also include sections about perception of the war.

I suggest to replace it with File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg, which is in public domain and it is about the event itself. MBelgrano (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, I have replaced the image as you have suggested. What does everyone think about the Newsweek image, which is also non-free? Rtdixon86 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, there is not such thing as ARA Belgrano, you can use just Belgrano or ARA General Belgrano. Thks. --Jor70 (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a technical detail: that's the name the file uses at Commons, and file renaming on the grounds that the current name is "inaccurate" are declined, specially if they are highly used images like this one. Too much work on the servers for such a small and relatively inconsequential gain. The file name is only visible in the code and at discussions, what appears in the articles is the content of the image itself. MBelgrano (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I was not referring the filename, he put ARA Belgrano on the article (already fixed) --Jor70 (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
@MBelgrano: USA is providing Wikipedia with a lot of free images, hence the Vietnam and Iraq War articles can benefit from that. That's a major difference. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I support the replacement. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Two things..

Why is there a need for '(UK)' after 'United Kingdom'?

And why is there a need to show the Argentine president as a commander when QEII or Margaret Thatchter are not shown? Flosssock1 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of (UK) after United Kingdom at the start is to clarify what the abbreviation UK means later in the article, however this could possibly be removed, and the first following instance of the abbreviation UK in the main body could be wikilinked instead.
The Argentine President did hold military rank, so it is definitely appropriate to include him. If we look at Korean War and World War II, we will see that Attlee and Churchill are included as commanders even though they held the same position in military terms as Margaret Thatcher. So I would suggest either we include Thatcher as per the WWII and Korean War articles, or clarify how the commander section of conflict infoboxes should be completed on the relevant project page before changing the article again. Rtdixon86 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Argentina was a military junta, Galtieri was both the leader of the junta and also still an active member of the Argentinian army, which is obviously quite different to the situation in the UK. David Underdown (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Was already expain at Talk:Falklands_War#Commanders --Jor70 (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This links to many disputes over commanders in war articles. Did he have considerable millitary command? Because QEII did, and still does ofcourse, hold a military rank. Flosssock1 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Galtieri was a career miltiary officer, and the Argentinian aarmed forces also held the political power in Argentina. While QEII does hold rank, apart from her WWII ATS service, it's essentially honorary. David Underdown (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
HM holds a largely ceremonial rank and doesn't participate in military command. There are a number of reasons for that, although the most basic is that she's not a military professional, we're well past the era where the monarch rode out at the head of a fighting force.
Not all states organise their military force commands in the same way. In the UK the MOD directs the implementation of support to HM Foreign and Security policy. No military officer would accept an order per se from a politician, the political direction is managed by the MoD and then cascaded down. In that sense politicians are not part of the command strucuture and are not bound by the same legislation.
ALR (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting Text to Images

Not one to point out faults, but under the section 'Public Relations' and under 'United Kingdom' it says:

Reporters referred to "the British troops" and "the Argentinian troops" instead of "our lads" and the dehumanised "Argies".

While to the right of that is a image of the front page of the sun saying:

Our lads sink gun boat and hole cruiser (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC) JJ72

The Sun barely qualifies as a newspaper. More a rabble rousing source of emergency toilet paper.--Charles (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It should be rewritten to make the above statement apply to the specifically to the BBC, which is correct and what I think was intended. Rtdixon86 (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Damned I didn't see that. I've changed the sentence to "These reporters..." Is that better? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Why says "invasion". For Argentina was recovery, that's no neutral. Alakasam (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you are talking about the first sentence of the second paragraph. Suggestion: we could remove "invasion" and retain "occupation". This should keep a matter of fact analysis of what happened in April 1982, and remove this suggested bias.Rtdixon86 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
No. Invasion is a perfectly neutral term in this case: this was an invasion, and there's no reason why we shouldn't describe it as such. Pfainuk talk 19:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
If the Argentine invasion was a recovery, then the British action must have been a liberation. To meet NPOV neither of these terms are used. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Pfainuk talk 20:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to be :

The initial invasion was characterised by Argentina as the re-occupation of its own territory, and by the UK as an invasion of a British dependent territory.

we are defining the term with the same word as one of sides involved. What about using movement .... recovery (far more accurate than reoccupation if we want to ref arg position) and invasion ? As per the British POV Liberation would be an effect not the cause which is explain in this paragraph --Jor70 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

An even easier rephrasing is:
It was characterised by Argentina as the re-occupation of its own territory, and by the UK as an invasion of a British dependent territory.
Hohum 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec with below) That doesn't make sense in context, because "it" would apply to the conflict as a whole, not the initial invasion. I wouldn't accept Jor's version either. It's not clear in context what the "movement" is - as I say, the rest of the paragraph is talking about the whole ten weeks.
I don't know which instance of "invasion" Alakasam objects to. He doesn't say, and we use it several times (it being the most obvious neutral and brief term, and also the term preferred by reliable sources). But the effect of his edits to the Spanish Wikipedia are to represent the Argentine POV as neutral fact - so I don't think it's that wide of the mark to suggest that he wants the same here. Pfainuk talk 21:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
What "it" is is very clear from the context. Hohum 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The conflict was the result of a protracted diplomatic confrontation regarding the sovereignty of the islands. Neither state officially declared war and the fighting was largely limited to the territories under dispute and the South Atlantic. It was characterised by Argentina as the re-occupation of its own territory, and by the UK as an invasion of a British dependent territory.
From where I'm sitting, it is very clear that "it" in this context refers to the conflict as a whole, not just the initial invasion. Pfainuk talk 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We use "invasion", this issue has come up lots of times before. I am lenient, but "invasion" must stay. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Invasion" was still in the phrase that I proposed. Hohum 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems much easier now The initial invasion was by The initial landings were which after all is what that paragraph is talking about, isnt it ? --Jor70 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I marked as no neutral because: The action of Argentina was an invasion just like the UK made later. But for Argentina, from the conceptual point of view, was a recovery. So we can not use a term that only promotes the UK point of view or vice versa. Alakasam (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Already reached a consensus in the Spanish Wikipedia. My problem is with the statement "The Falklands War started on Friday, 2 April 1982 with the Argentine invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia". Not yet read the rest of the article. I purpose "Landing and occupation" Alakasam (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
And from the British point of view - Operation Corporate was the liberation of the Falklanders from a brutal dictatorship which tortured and murdered its own citizens. From time to time revisionists tries to downgrade hostilities. NPOV could either be the brutal truth from both sides or consensus with neutral words like invasion. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"Invasion" does not promote the British POV. It's an accurate and neutral term for what happened, and there is no reason at all to remove it. Pfainuk talk 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Public relations / Argentina

In the fourth paragraph of [[6]] I found this -

The Malvinas course united the Argentines in a patriotic atmosphere that protected the junta from critics[78]

In place of citation details in the notes section there is this -

Even opposers of the military government supported Galtieri; Ernesto Sabato: "Don't be mistaken, Europe; it is not a dictatorship that is fighting for the Malvinas, it is the whole Nation."

Is there someone who can fix the citation for this, or should it be removed? A quick look on Google in an effort to find a proper source for this claim came up with nothing. Rtdixon86 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed and expanded it. The original quote is "No se engañen en Europa. No es una dictadura la que lucha por Malvinas, es la Nación entera. Opositores a la dictadura militar, como yo, estamos luchando por extirpar el último resto de colonialismo". It was said at the "La Nación" newspaper, and it is atributed to such source at this paper hosted by the Ministry of Education MBelgrano (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rtdixon86 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

argie vs Argentine

This article uses lower case argie. I think it would be more encyclopedic to replace argie with Argentine. Any one have an arument for leaving argie? Tjc (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

All that stuff came from one user and I reverted to previous versionTjc (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New reader's viewpoint

I have copied these suggestions down from Skirmish at Many Branch Point. Should I be bold and make the changes I've mentioned or let one of you experts try first? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the article for the first time today. In my opinion, some of the content is over-summarized and difficult for new readers (like me) to understand. The following are things that confused me on my first reading:
  • In the Initial British response to the invasion subsection, you should say something, even in a summary, about setting up the Maritime and Total Exclusion Zones.
  • In Black Buck raids:
    • The article says "opened with the "Black Buck 1" attack (of a series of five) on the airfield at Stanley". Suggest: "opened with the "Black Buck 1" attack (of a series of five) on the airfield at Stanley by Vulcan bombers from Ascension Island.
    • I think there should be a paragraph break between "...precious tanker resources." and "The raids did minimal damage..." to differentiate the actual attacks from their effects.
    • There is confusion between the first sentence "attack (of a series of five) on the airfield at Stanley" and the last paragraph "Of the five Black Buck raids, three were against Stanley Airfield...". Was it 3 or 5? And this sentence belongs in the first "attack" paragraph.
  • In Escalation of the air war:
    • The first paragraph says "compelled to overfly British forces". Suggest: "compelled to overfly British naval forces".
    • You should say near the beginning of this subsection something like "whereas the British had Harrier Jump Jets from the HMS Invincible".
    • The second paragraph says "were firing at Argentine defences near the islands". Argentine ground defences, naval defences, air defences or a combination? Also what is "a late pop-up profile"?
    • If the fourth paragraph ("Combat broke out between...") is part of the incident described in the third paragraph ("Meanwhile, other Argentine aircraft..."), there should not be a paragraph break. If they're separate, you should so state ("In a separate incident, combat broke out...").
  • More later.
Because of your concern about the expansion of the article, I decided not to be bold in this case. :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am totally boggled as to why you have struck through other editors comments while moving this (as this usually indicates the editor has retracted the statement) and why you have duplicated a section already present on this same page for such bitty style edits? --Narson ~ Talk 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why have you struck through mine and Justin's comments? Altering other talk page comments violates WP:TALKO. I've "hidden" the offending material as i can't be sure what else you might have changed
I am truly sorry if I've broken some of your local (yes, I said local) rules. WP:TALKO, as I read it, does not forbid copying (not moving) comments, even to other sections. Under WP:TALKO this is called "Sectioning" (see the bullet point there). See also this Merge Discussion for an example in which we struck out, moved (not copied) and refactored whole subsections without getting anyone's tail in a twitter.
I struck out the two paragraphs by Justin and Ryan because (a) I didn't think they were pertinent to the new discussion and (b) they were still visible through the strikeout, if anyone cared. Why do you say that "this usually indicates the editor has retracted the statement"? I may be wrong but I can find nothing about stikeouts anywhere within the Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I could claim that whoever "hid" the stuck off paragraghs in the new section is guilty of violating WP:TALKO but that would be non-productive.
The real reason I started a new section is that many editors for many articles don't bother to look at previous talk sections. Since I had not received comments at the old section for 4 or 5 days, I re-introduced my remarks here. I did not intend to insult anyone or the article itself (which I think is pretty good).
To get back to improving the article, does anyone have any comments to my suggestion above? (And yes, I would prefer that you insert any remarks (properly indented) under the individual bullet points to which they apply, rather than down here at the end, in spite of WP:TALKO's admonishment about Interruptions.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant, you apologise, claim you don't intend to insult anyone, then accuse me of violating TALKO! Fact is, you did something wrong, two more experienced editors pulled you up on it. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Just popped on over (because I was on ITN commenting on a Falklands-related nomination), and I noticed this convo. My 10 cents; Roy, I wish I could find where it does say this, but Narson is correct when he says that striking text is reserved for people when withdrawing comments they've made. As for moving comments around to fit with a discussion, that is allowed but you must do so very careful. The rule is, if a move of text is controversial, don't do it. Clearly the reaction shows the move is controversial. HonouraryMix (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is too much controversy for me. I again apologize for using the strikeouts. Use my suggestions or not as you see fit. I wish you all well in the continued construction of the article. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
HonouraryMix - FYI - WP:REDACT. (Which suggests using <del></del> to create strikeouts.) (Hohum @) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I should add that my confusion over the move was just that it was moved from a rather clear point in one section to the end for no reason, it seemed rather odd to do it not controversial. The edits themselves are regular maintenance from what I gleaned from reading them and have no objection to them, so a bold move would have been great, I can't see anyone reverting such minor style edits. --Narson ~ Talk 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


There seems to be no content on the brief shuttle diplomacy of Haig and the UN diplomatic fron in the article - am I overlooking something? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Falklands Conflict v Falklands War

I believe the main wording of the article and indeed the Title should refer to Conflict/War/Crisis as Conflict or perhaps even crisis. However not war. War is a very inflammatory word.

As neither Britain nor Argentina declared war, the events can not technically be described as a war (But would correct to note that is sometimes referred to as a war). It would be more accurate and correct for it to primarily be referred to as being conflict. It would raise the standard of the article from using common terminology to the technically correct and accurate terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The declaration of a state of war seems to have, as it were, dropped out out of fashion. The US never officially declared war in relation to its actions in Vietnam, but that doesn't stop anyone referring to the Vietnam War. Military action in Korea was authorised by the UN Security Council, but again, I don't think a state of war was actually declared, but again it's universally referred to as the Korean War, similarly with the Gulf War and the present conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Universally referred to as wars, but no legal declarations of war to be found. I don't see any reason for treating the Falklands any differently. David Underdown (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been long discussed before, like it or not Falklands War is the way the english-speaking world knows it and indeed in 1982 was very inflammatory. Although is true, that the oficial name in Argentina always was and still is Conflicto del Atlantico Sur as Falklands Conflict is commonly used by diplomatic sources. --Jor70 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflict was used at the time but since it is always referred to in English as the Falklands War, the alternatives are in the article. I can't think of anyone who would use the older term these days. Justin talk 15:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
In 2005 the historian Lawrence Freedman wrote two books after he had examined secret documents. Volume I: "The Origins of the Falklands War" and volume II: "War and Diplomacy".'s speculations must be OR. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose conflict: The term "war" has been in use since before the League of Nations/UN ever existed, see Trojan War. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "conflict" is that it may make it confusing the topic the article is about. It may be the warfare events that took place in 1982, or it may be the long-term conflict in respect to the sovereignty of the islands; each one having its own article MBelgrano (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd oppose "conflict" on grounds of naming conventions. Falklands War is by far the most common name in English. Pfainuk talk 20:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The term conflict is still used in the media (See Daily Telegraph, BBC), I wouldn't say that conflict was particularly the rarer form so would not be in convention of naming conventions. Also the War page already has the not to be confused notice and that article clearly states sovereignty dispute rather than Falklands Conflict. The English speaking world know it both as Conflict and war and as mentioned above in Argentina it is known as conflict, to maintain neutrality then the word conflict is the better choice.

Whilst it is true that recently Sky News referred to it is Falklands War during a report on the recent tensions they corrected themselves and referred to it as Falklands Conflict. The Royal Navy (& MOD) on the 25th anniversary referred to it as conflict. As mentioned earlier at time it was referred to as conflict and whilst it is also referred as a war recently it has continued to be referred as Conflict in common/popular english speaking media such as Sky News & BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Freedman referred to above is the official historian of events for the British - if he's content to use war, that certainly settle sit for me. David Underdown (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose conflict: euphemism. Rothorpe (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose conflict: since war is defined as the waging of armed conflict against an enemy. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose conflict: The article uses the most common English name per WP:COMMONNAME, which specifically doesn't require the technically correct name - which is what news sources will may tend to use. "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name."

English google searches excluding wikipedia results gives ~300,000 for "Falklands war" vs ~65,000 for "Falklands conflict". Google book search gives 1790 vs 852, Google news, 470 vs 153 (Hohum @) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK fought alone?

It is the most recent conflict to be fought by the UK without any allied states and the only external Argentine war since the 1880s.

There has been documented support by the United States, Chile and Norway. The US supplied the UK with Side-winder Missiles and military equipment whereas Chile provided radar's assistance, bases in Punta de Arenas, etc.


--Xonny88 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A cerain amount of logistaical support and supply from other nations was involved (and this did not result from formal obligations under treaty), but no other country's armed forces supplied troops, aircraft or naval forces which is the point. David Underdown (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused ?

When was that added ? is really necessary ? --Jor70 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

External links section

Bit a mess. May be some sort, grouping or cleaning would be in place --Jor70 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL may be helpful, I agree we could sort, group and clean. I should be able to help out later in the week. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the most obvious contraventions to WP:EL - dead and unrecoverable links, sites that require registration, redundant, a forum, and a single opinion news piece. I'm not entirely sure comic page link is entirely relevant, but I left it for others to decide. Also, foreign language external links aren't usually desirable per WP:NONENGEL, (as opposed to non English references per WP:NONENG), but I also understand that they may be desirable for this article. (Hohum @) 22:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Commanders

I started a full list at User:Jor70/Falklands War commanders‎, I think might be useful (and handy) --Jor70 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course is a draft and everyone is welcome to help --Jor70 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Technically the political leadership of the UK at the time was the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, though the subset of them that formed the War Cabinet was at the heart of it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought that maybe you should have had Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State of The UK. My reasoning for this is that she is the only one who can declare a war (abeit on the advice of her government) that involves the United Kingdom. Then again, as war was not formally declared, maybe not. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


I don't understand the top part about the UK fighting without help from allies... American forces were present, notably in Goose Green. 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, U.S. Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get this unlikely information from? (Hohum @) 17:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I find it pays not to feed the trolls. Justin talk 17:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I gave the (rather large) benefit of the doubt that there may have been a single American on secondment present, rather than the entire 325th - although it would have been the first I'd heard of it. (Hohum @) 17:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it the US secondees with 3Cdo Bde, SAS and SBS were prevented from deploying due to diplomatic concerns by the US government.
ALR (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
For the purposes of the infobox, lending some forces or material support is not enough: the country, as a whole, should have been fully involved in the conflict. If it didn't, then it shouldn't be listed as a belligerent. It should only be mentioned in the article at the respective place, but just that MBelgrano (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know the only american forces present there were the Argentines but would be interesting to see your sources --Jor70 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys this is classic trolling, you shouldn't even humour this IP. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The Finns Finland also helped the British but the Togolese Togo sent forces to help Argentina! Ha ha. No this is not true.
It is true that  Chile and the  United States provided some support to the British. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


I am neutral.

Please be mindful that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Most English speaking people will take the position that Argentina invaded the islands. However, some people may have the position that Argentina sought to liberate the islands.

It can be said with complete neutrality that Argentina sent military forces to the island. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of this has been fixed, which is enough for me. There doesn't have to be total embargo of the use of the word "invasion". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral too. You're hopelessly ignorant in this matter. Most English speaking people are US-citizens or at least non-British. So they're not automatically pro-London. You misquoted "perhaps by this time they had received suitable satellite imagery from the USA" to "The United States provided satellite imagery to the British." It is a major issue, whether UK received US satellite images or not. Anyone with a minuscule knowledge of the Falklands War would know that. Regarding "invasion" and "conflict", it has already been debated here. Please read it. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No I disagree, NPOV doesn't require we use euphemisms to avoid hurt feelings or give undue weight to fringe opinion. Euphemisms are an excuse and a disservice to our readers. It was an invasion and I object to those changes most strongly as well as the introduction of unfounded speculation. There are plenty of urban legends, we shouldn't report based on flaky sources. I support NE revert as well. Justin talk 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. My suggestion is expired. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

article suggestion

The retaking of the Falkland Islands was considered extremely difficult: the main constraint was the disparity in deployable air cover (the British having 34 Harrier aircraft against Argentina's 220 jet fighters). The U.S. Navy considered a successful counter-invasion by the British to be 'a military impossibility'

This appears in the article. Yet, it is not fully explained why the impossibility became a possibility which then occurred. It is hinted that the reason was that Argentina was not able to base aircraft in the Falklands to a large extent. If so, mention it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is 93 kilobytes long. Therefore it has been split into smaller, more specific articles. I'll suggest you read Argentine air forces in the Falklands War. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This suggestion is not expired because the article makes a statement but makes it very difficult to read further. Only with careful sleuthing does one find the answer. There should be a main article heading, which I am putting. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Consequences of the Falklands War

Another editor and myself have a conflict of opinion about the Falklands War#Consequences of the Falklands War section. I think it needs references, is weasely, POV, and has obtuse sentence structures; requiring copyediting. They have argued in edit comments that it doesn't need references because it links to a main article on the subject. My understanding is that all content within an article needs to be referenced, and other pages on wikipedia specifically cannot be used as references - see WP:CIRCULAR. While the weasel wording and POV and strangled grammar seems very apparent to me, perhaps someone else can give their opinion on that? Hohum (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you check that, its a short intro section to another linked article. You don't need to source content in an introduction when its referenced elsewhere in the linked document. Justin talk 21:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you check it. I've provided a wiki policy completely to the contrary, while you've not shown anything to support your opinion. WP:LEAD suggests that even the lead of an article needs to be referenced. Hohum (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Quoting WP:CIRCULAR is an utterly fallacious argument, its not a circular reference, the linked article is not being used as a citation. Per WP:LEAD

Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. ...

Redundant citations is precisely what you're advocating. Its not as if the material is not well known or controversial. Justin talk 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a textbook example of how to abuse {{fact}} to harass other editors. You have placed the templates as a bot would have done it; at the end of each subsection. The number of fact templates should never depend on whether the text is written in one section or three subsections. The general idea is that challenged material should be cited, not common knowledge or previous cited material. The WP:LEAD is irrelevant here since the introduction of the article isn't in question. The introduction of WP:CIRCULAR shows that the you haven't even bothered to look at Consequences of the Falklands War#References which is full of non-Wiki references. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please get a grip, I am not trying to harass other editors, I'm trying to make sure what is being said is verifiable, without referring to other pages on wikipedia. The policy quite clearly says that each wiki article needs to stand on its own, with their own references, and not hope that the other articles have them. Other articles are moving targets. The number of fact templates depend on the number of contentious, unreferenced passages. That is how I applied them. This would be immediately resolved if references were supplied. Details of the political situation in Argentina and Britain in 1982 do not fall under "common knowledge". Hohum (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look at Dentren's use of the fact template [7] he's wondering if "the air combat training of the British pilots was indisputably superior" is correct. Your carpet bombing of the text with fact templates makes it impossible to know what it is you want to see sources for. Is it whether Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the UK or the Royal Navy participated in the Falklands War or that Argentina became a democracy because of the war? Secondly it is not just a hyperlink, it's a {{Main|Consequences of the Falklands War}} --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Three fact tags isn't "carpet bombing". It's selective for each of the passages tagged. It's obviously for the contentious points raised, not the "sky is blue" ones. I note that one of the phrases has since been completely removed by another editor because it is totally unjustified.
Your assertion that using a "Main" template excuses a section from being referenced is completely unsupported, and completely contradicted by wikipedia policy, as I have shown. References are required. You haven't shown otherwise. Hohum (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Except that it has, the citations you are demanding are redundant as demonstrated above. References are supplied, they're on the linked article. Justin talk 23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What part of the policy that says a wiki article can't rely on another wiki article for references, is confusing you? Hohum (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Which part of another wiki article is NOT being used as a reference don't you understand? You demanded redundant citations, your use of {{fact}} tags was entirely inappropriate. Further it was disruptive as you didn't actually identify what supposedly not common knowledge or challengable as being controversial. You're saying that we haven't demonstrated appropriate areas of policy, we have, now it appears you're resorting to little more than naked abuse. Justin talk 07:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Most importantly, see WP:SUMMARY#References, citations and external links. David Underdown (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the HMS "Ardent", wasn't she sunk also (not mentioned in the article ?) What happened to the crew ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Falklands War#Landing at San Carlos—Bomb Alley HMS Ardent (F184)'s sinking is mentioned. The crew were picked up by another ship, HMS Yarmouth from memory though I would need to check that. We are unable to include every piece of information in this article I'm afraid, you may note we already have problems with space here. Justin talk 11:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Decisive" Victory

As a brief note here, for some reason the outcome listed in the infobox was listed as a "decisive" victory; if we look at the term's article, we find that it describes the result for a BATTLE that influences the war/conflict it is a part of... Hence, a war/conflict ITSELF can't be "decisive;" as evidenced by the numerous other articles on wars that do not use the 'decisive' term, such as the Gulf War, Invasion of Panama, or even World War 2, in spite of all being major victories of one side over the other. As such, I changed the wording. Likewise, I removed the word "military" from it, since all wars, by nature, involve militaries/paramilitaries, so again, its removal was to be consistent with other comparable articles. Nottheking (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide rather than here. MBelgrano (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't a proposal; that was a notification of the change I went ahead and made myself, as is usually recommended. The notification, and subsequent explanation, were for the benefit of any editors that saw the change and might take issue with it. My past experience has been that some editors will very hotly protest and debate any form of change to the description of a military outcome... Most prominently with the Battle of Jutland. Hence, by putting this here I was hoping to protect against an angry, impulsive revert. Nottheking (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

obsolet version 1 of the map
I propose to replace some of the maps shown in the article through this one. I think it contain a lot of information in a suitable context. But it must be at least 550px wide to be used (in my notebook). I please you to comment following:

  • is the info correct and backed?
  • can the reader understand the situation?
  • should be used a broader (e.g. 700px) image?
  • should be replaced?, if yes, which images should be replaced?
  • existed 1982 all the roads shown in the image?
  • are the red, green and (2x) blue paths the true paths followed by the troops?
  • do we need to show the Peeble raid location? (some pixel could be saved if not)

The image is a SVG-image and any one can modify the upper layer. The background is a png image and shouldn't be changed. I added the Two sisters, Tumbledown, William, Longdon, Harriet, Vernet, Estancia and Sapper mounts as A-G in order to explain the events short before the surrender. --Keysanger 11:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be better to separate the description of each advance to a key. Currently there is too much text all over the map. (Hohum @) 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The information shown is not correct, the route shown for 3 Para for example is wrong. And many of the roads shown didn't exist in 1982 (unless you count dirt tracks as roads). I will see what others think but it strikes me as too cluttered. Maps make much better sense for the individual battles. Justin talk 16:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I took the info about the 3 Para from this picture File:Falklands, Campaign, (Movements) 1982.jpg. Hohum, what do you mean with "to separate the description of each advance to a key" ? Justin, which is the right route? What about if we delete all roads?.

Indeed there is a lot of text, but the map contains the name of the troops, landing beach, march route, time, an useful topographic description of the terrain, and the location of the (8x) "Mount XX". I deleted already Mount Pleasent Airport. We can also "zoom" the map, we cut away all west of Falkland Sound and south of Goose Green, north of Cape Dolphin. But somehow, if we reduce the map too much we lost the context of the operations. --Keysanger 18:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"separate the description of each advance to a key": Display the route(s) with a colour coded line as you have already done, but don't put the text description alongside the line. Instead provide an area which mates the colour codes with the unit and date information. (Hohum @) 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Your source is over simplified, it doesn't actually show the routes used. For example the Guards were first landed at San Carlos, moved forward, were recalled and then moved by sea. 3 Para tabbed to Estancia house, near Teal Inlet and Mount Estancia. How much detail do you want to add, for instance do you wish to show 3 Para's advance to contact on Mount Longdon that was called off to await the Marines arrival? Justin talk 08:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not so easy as I thought, but doable. Hohum's idea is good. Too many details aren't necessary for WP. Our goal should be a comprehensive image of the campaign for the reader. Spiry paths suggest to the reader that it is the real path followed by the marsh. But they make the picture a little bit more vivid than straight lines. I will improve my proposal. Do you know a map with "Top Malo" registered?. --Keysanger 13:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You may find the maps available here of use, Chapters 33-50. (Hohum @) 14:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have access to Razor's Edge by Hugh Bicheno, it contains many maps that are immacutely researched. I haven't found a better resource in that respect. Regards, Justin talk 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

second third fourth map

Land operations in the Falklands.

I can't access the book, unfortunately, because I would like to find a good solution for the map. I read Gordon Smith's history and I made this chronogram to overview the ops. But Smith doesn't say:

  • How did the Gurkhas move from Goose Green to Mount William?
  • How did the 45 Cdo from Ayax Bay to Port San Carlos? (before start to Douglas)
  • Aprox. troop levels of 2, 3 Paras, 40, 42, 45 Cdos., Scots, Welsh Guards, Gurkhas? (it would be foolish to draw equals lines for very different troop levels).

The second version is now on this page. --Keysanger 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The map is still incorrect, 3 Para deployed to the Sussex Mountains and from there to Estancia House. I suggest you also look up WP:FUR, the Sea Harrier image you added needs a FUR for every use and I doubt you could make a satisfactory one. Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm, please do your research before adding to the article. Regards, Justin talk 15:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest using dotted lines for helicopter movement, and dashed lines for ship. Perhaps also provide a separate map to show the dense detail near Stanley.
  • 42 Commando was helicoptered to Mt. Kent area. (short by a Company - which was at S. Georgia) Source: Middlebrook (1987) Task Force, The Falklands War ISBN 014008035X pp 405-408
  • 1/7 Ghurka. One company left in Goose Green - one company ferried by sea to Bluff Cove, then the rest helicoptered. The helicopter again to south of Two Sisters. source.
(Hohum @) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment
  • 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment
  • 1st Battalion, 7th Gurkha Rifles
  • 1st Battalion, Welsh Guards
  • 2nd Battalion, Scots Guards
  • D & G Squadrons, Special Air Service (~60 men per Squadron)
Royal Navy (RM Commandos are approximately equivalent to a Battalion)
  • 40 Commando
  • 42 Commando (2 out of 3 companies)
  • 45 Commando
(Hohum @) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin,

Smith states explicit that " 3 Para in two columns moved from Port San Carlos towards Teal Inlet (28th) and stayed there over Saturday (29th)" in Part 39. 3 COMMANDO "YOMPS/TABS" FROM SAN CARLOS. Well then?

Hi Hohum,

  • using dotted lines for helicopter movement, and dashed lines for ship: such lines are scarcely seen in a little image. But we will test it.
  • 42 Commando was helicoptered to Mt. Kent area: OK.
  • 1/7 Ghurka. One company left in Goose Green - one company ferried by sea to Bluff Cove, then the rest helicoptered.
Too many details within an image are confusing. I will look for a possible solution.
  • Strengths: Should be there an important difference (regarding the thick of the path line on the image) between the Parachutes, Welsh, Scots and Gurkha and the RM Commandos Battalions? I think that if every one is or is equivalent to a battalion (with a coy less or more) I can represent every one with the same line thick. Right?.
  • provide a separate map to show the dense detail near Stanley: Don’t count the chickens before they are hatched

best regards --Keysanger 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Right Razor's Edge by Hugh Bicheno, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign by Lawrence Freedman., The Falklands War 1982 by Martin Middlebrook, Excursion to Hell by Vincent Bramley, all confirm that 3 Para was based around Estancia House before the assault on Mount Longdon. They passed through Teal Inlet with Terry Peck as guide but that wasn't their destination. You are correct that they went via San Carlos, it was 2 Para that were based on the Sussex Mountains to protect the Southern flank. Justin talk 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Dots and dashes should be clear and easy to differentiate even in a 220px thumbnail as long as you choose sensible dot spacing and dash spacing and length.
I think the force sizes are so similar that trying to differentiate between them by line thickness wouldn't be worth it - except perhaps for a thin line for the split 1/7 Gurkha movement sea/heli segment. (Hohum @) 20:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How did the 40 Cmd. move from San Carlos to Sapper Hill? Smith states only: Mo 31 May: 40 Cdo in defence of San Carlos area Su 13 Jun: A depleted 1st Welsh Guards, reinforced by 40 Cdo, prepared to occupy Sapper Hill --Keysanger 21:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

9 Troop of 40 Commando was moved forward by 2 Sea Kings, a helo lift. Bicheno p.314. Justin talk 21:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

the 3. version is there --Keysanger 21:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I discard to show a red-yellow-blue circle or star at places where ground forces combats took place. Too sensation-grabbing.
  • I am dubious about the "X" of the SAS/SBS/MA&W. Probably there are another places where they were. They were also on Bull Hill and Evelyn Hill, but also in Mt. Kent. I showed only the last one.
  • the arrows for the landing self aren't draw
  • Perhaps we should stop the paths before the first defence ring to avoid misleading interpretations of the parallel lines to Stanley
  • The patrol of Gurkhas to Lafonia is not draw.

--Keysanger 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Crossed swords is typical iconography for a battle location, but I think that would create too much clutter near Stanley.
Some of the heli lines are missing arrows - the arrows are perhaps a little too big, but not by much.
The blue/white lines near Stanley aren't explained - I keep thinking they are enormous runways. ;)
The paths should probably either stop, with detail on a different map, or made accurate - since for SVG it's possible to zoom in.
Perhaps add small dates by the special forces raids.
Should the Argentinian units be represented and given a key?
(Hohum @) 01:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The map as is, is only suitable for British ground forces in the Falklands War --Jor70 (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Jor70 has a point there, it would be a more suitable place for it. May I also suggest the map is limited to the jumping off points as extending it to the battles over complicates it. Justin talk 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Why?. Please, describe in detail your rationale, because I find it very interesting your appreciation of values. It is an article about the Falklands War, not over war planes or Argentine power politics, and you want to sweep a map over the British infantry deployment during the main phase of the war under the carpet, but you self want to keep three (empty) maps and a lot of (futile) photos on the page, that say nothing to the reader about the war.
The three maps are empty, they don't impart knowledge over any thing, they are simply empty. How many kilometers must walk the 3 para from Port San Carlos to Estancia? and the 2 para from San Carlos to Darwin?, how many days had they to walk? what was the relative position of Stanley, San Carlos and Goose Green to each other?, How far were San Carlos, Ayax Bay and Port San Carlos from each other? What means that the Argentine commander failed to use the disaster of Bluff Cove?. How far was the Argentine main garrison (Stanley) from the beaten Welsh Guards?. The reader has the best access to this facts only, I repeat only, if he has a good map. The map bunches the poorly information given separately in the three little maps plus a comprehensible and concise description of the main movements occurred between the landing in San Carlos and the fall of Stanley.
If you miss the Argentine movements and withdrawal, then read the Informe Rattenbach, the definitive dissection of the defeat done by the 3 Argentine Armed Forces after the war:
§778 [...] b. EL CTE. FF.TT. y ulteriormente de la Agrupación Malvinas, cometió el error táctico de no reorganizar su dispositivo después del desembarco de San Carlos, Además, condujo luego su combate defensivo, sin la dinámica que muestran las reacciones ofensivas, y con incorrecto aprovechamiento del terreno. finalmente por razón de sus reservas insuficientes inconvenientemente ubicadas y su falta de movilidad por el inadecuado uso y preservación que ya se había hecho de los helicópteros disponibles, así como por la falta de sus vehículos blindados livianos de transporte llevó el fracaso a su acción en la forma conocida.
If you don't understand Spanish then trust Smith:
[...] However on the ground, they were about to depend on well prepared defensive positions rather than aggressive counter-attack.
In other words, the Argentine troops didn't move significant from their trenches. As I read somewhere they lifted troops to Goose Green as is was too late. If you find more information about, I have no problem to add it to the SVG-map. If you want to write a good article, then you have to accept the facts as they are, don't try to stash them.
If any thing belong to other article then move the photos of planes to the article "Planes of the Falkland War" and the photo of Anaya to Argentina and let the map of the British infantry deployment from 20.5-13.6 1982 in East Falkland here. I loaded a new version of the map. Best regards, --Keysanger 12:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The map (as of 2010-10-04T13:31:53) is useful, but it is overcrowded at Stanley. Another map should show the details at Stanley with the Argentine regiments and British forces tête-à-tête, even the aborted battles. The strange blue-white bars should be replaced with crossed swords. For the sake of NPOV, the deployment of the 25th regiment to Goose Green should be included. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, to say the Argentines remained static is not entirely correct. There was the movement from Mount Kent alluded to above, plus the retreat from Mount Kent to Mount Longdon as well as the withdrawal from Fanning Height to Goose Green. This of course ignores the move to West Falkland by the garrison there. The latter is acceptable as they never played anything other than a minor role. Though you might consider the movement of Argentine special forces to West Falkland. Just a thought. Justin talk 22:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC) says that ...firstly some 40 troops in the town of Port San Carlos itself, and secondly, overlooking the main approach route along Falkland Sound, there was a 20 man radio-equipped Observation Post atop Fanning Head. After the combat in Fanning Head Six Argentine troops surrendered, and three more were injured. A later search of the area by 40 Commando revealed ten or eleven more bodies hidden in the rough ground.. So, there was no withdraw to Port San Carlos from FH according .

The thick of the paths is accordant to the troop level:

  • 1px for the escape of the 40 Argentines from Port San Carlos to Stanley
  • 2px for a British company
  • 4px for the path of the 12 Inf. Rgmt. (1000 Men)
  • 3px for every of the 8 British Batallion/Commando

I refrain from drawing:

  • the "visit" to Swan Inlet by 12 British,
  • the patrol of Lafonia by a coy of Gurkhas.
  • logistics lines, artillery or anti air

The details of the battles from 11-14 June 1982 must be object of a second (zoomed) map. I hope I have considered all yours proposals and ideas in the German version (below). If there are no more objections I will reply the changes to the English version.

Sorry no, you're wrong, there was a withdrawal led, I believe, by Lt Estevez. Martin Middlebrook, [8] for example. I can't accept a map that is one sided and our policy of WP:NPOV won't permit it. Justin talk 22:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If you have the book, can you relate the facts so they can be included, rather than just saying "no" please? (Hohum @) 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous comment, with the polite suggestion that he consults the previous history before making such comments. Off to bed said zebedee. Justin talk 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin, Strewth!, that decisive withdrawal seems to have changed the course of the war and neither [9] nor [10] noticed it!. Or are you re-writing the history of the Falklands?. Anyway, I haven't all books on my desk. Would you be so kind to transcript the main facts over this move?. Tell me only from, to, troop level, route and a date, if possible and I put it on the map. Regarding POV, I can't find neither the passage in the article where the withdrawal in question is described nor the passage with the escape of the 12 Argentines over Douglas to Stanley nor the Argentine effort to transport 1000 Men from Stanley to Goose Green. What do you think, under strict formal interpretation, Do we need a {{POV}} Tag at the top of the article or only in that chapter? --Keysanger 12:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you stop the personal attacks now, it is getting decidely tedious. I do have an extensive library, as does NE who has given a reasonably comprehensive answer below. I will help where I can by making suggestions for improvement but I don't find the attitude of dismissing anything the Argentine forces did as contributing to a NPOV. Justin talk 20:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keysanger. I have been evaluated as a source for the Falklands War. The authors had access to many British servicemen so it's useful for the British operations. However for the Argentine side, it's less useful. So when they wrote something like 1000 Argentines were helicoptered to Goose Green May 26, or ten/eleven dead Argentines from Fanning Head, they're dubious. Some RAF 'propaganda' is also present: [11] Black Buck Two:

The area to the western end of the runway was heavily cratered in the attack, preventing any possible extension of the airfield for high performance combat aircraft.

is a nice way of telling that they missed their target. The historian Lawrence Freedman states in "The official history of the Falklands campaign" Volume II (2005), page 296:

The next morning began, at 0820Z, with another Vulcan attack on Stanley airfield. The mission again ran smoothly, but the higher altitude adopted, to stay clear of Argentine Roland surface-to-air missiles, meant that the attack itself was less successful.

and page 301:

To add to a frustrating day, it soon transpired that all the bombs released by the second Vulcan attack on the airfield at Stanley had missed the runway.

Black Buck Seven:

On 12 June, Stanley again reverberated to the detonation of bombs dropped by a Vulcan in the final 'Black Buck 7' raid of the series, successfully cratering the eastern end of the airfield and causing widespread damage to airfield stores and facilities.

sounds effective but Lawrence Freedman states on page 631

Early on 12 June, at 0850Z, there was the last Vulcan raid on Stanley airfield - BLACK BUCK SEVEN. The intention was to attack the airfield parking and storage area with VT fused air-burst bombs, but impact fusing was set in error, and the 21 bombs fell wide of the target. is a tool in the toolbox, useful with limitations. Martin Middlebrook is more useful for the Argentine operations.
It is unwise to use sarcasm if your knowledge is based on biased websites. There are many books, most of them are only useful regarding the authors own experiences - a few are 'omniscient'. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

German Version

Land operations in East Falklands from 21.Mai to 10 June 1982

In order to compare NecEvi's proposal I edited a German version of the map with following changes (besides language):

--Keysanger 20:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin Middlebrook: "The Fight for the 'Malvinas'", 1989, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-670-82106-3
The Argentine garrison at Goose Green and Darwin was known as Task Force Mercedes. The main unit was the 12th Regiment commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Italo Piaggi. His B company was at near Stanley and a platoon of his A company had been part of the Fanning Head-Port San Carlos detachment. With a platoon from the 8th Regiment and a newly created platoon of specialists, whose equipment was left in Argentina or Stanley gave Mercedes eleven rifle platoons. Furthermore there were artillerymen and engineers plus air force personnel at his command. Instead of "12. Inf. Regt." it should be "Task Force Mercedes".
At 12.30 p.m. 28th May 84 men of the 12th and 25th regiments arrived (including veterans from Fanning Head-Port San Carlos). They were helicoptered from Stanley, First Lieutenant Esteban was in charge.
At 5.20 p.m. B company (12 RI) arrived (Task Group Solari). They were helicoptered from Mt. Kent, Captain Eduardo Corsiglia was in charge. So the "12 Inf Rgmt. per Hubschrauber nach Goose Green am 26 Mai" should be changed. "B Coy (12 RI) 28 May" as the dotted line reveals that it's per helicopter. To an average reader the map would else indicate that Goose Green was devoid of Argentines until May 26th, where the whole regiment was airlifted.
First Lieutenant Esteban had a force of forty-two men at Port San Carlos and after four days of trekking, they reached Douglas Settlement and helicoptered to Stanley. At Fanning Head Second Lieutenant Roberto Reyes had 19 men. Six surrendered, three were found wounded and the rest, under Roberto Reyes, escaped in the dark. Roberto Reyes received the "La Nación Argentina al Valor en Combate" medal, so he wasn't part of the ten or eleven more bodies. So at least one guy withdrew from Fanning Head, but not worth drawing on the map.
The Argentine troops in the Stanley sector was called Agrupación Puerto Argentino (Stanley Sector), shorter than "3, 4, 6, 7 & 25 reg, 5. Marine, 3rd Artillery, 4th AA reg, 10th Armoured Squadron, 601st Engineers, 601st AA regt., 601st Combat Aviation". --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like Reyes and ten others escaped Fanning Head. I was carried along with RAF's website ;-( --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you NE. I wrote the Spanish names and reduced the thickness of the Arg. path. I will also draw the transport "At 12.30 p.m. 28th May 84 men of the 12th and 25th rgmt...". What do you think now?, How can we improve the map? I have some trouble with the type (SIwnalnet instead of Swan Inlet) but I hope to fix it. --Keysanger 22:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Red letters are difficult to read, how about solid blue boxes with white letters? There is too much information regarding the Argentine movements: "von Mt. Kent nach Goose Green" - e.g. the movement of the Gurkhas from San Carlos to Goose Green is not written, the reader can follow the pink arrow on the map. "Absetzung 40 arg. Soldaten" would that be "Retreat of Lt. Esteban's unit" in English? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi NE,

  • Too much information... Yes. deleted.
  • Absetzung 40 arg. Soldaten... Yes. The same people who shot down the helicopter in San Carlos Water.
  • Red letters... You are right. We have the same problem with the dates of the paths. Hence I added a black border, allowedly not the best solution. OTOH, I reduced the color strength of all paths and beachheads to 70%, green up to 30% (transparency) to avoid flamboyant objects that cluttered the map. A blue box with white text is, I tested it, very heavy. I try another exit with the stronghold symbol and the text. Is it more suggestive?

Regarding my graphics skills and the discussion above, I don't take always the text in the talk pages seriously. You know "Things are never as bad as they seem".

Feel free to criticise the map and to propose changes. Best Regards, --Keysanger 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You've managed to change SIwnalnet to Swan Inlet, well done! I'm looking forward to see your map of the Stanley Gebiet ;-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Are those delta symbols mirages ? Perhaps you should put a small flag instead --Jor70 (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Typo. "Ayax Bay" should be "Ajax Bay", the text could also do with being moved slightly to the left so it's more easily read. The arrows may be better as lines, rather than filled wedges. Can small dates be put by the special forces actions? (Hohum @) 11:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hohum. I fixed the misspell. Actually I am not happy with the X's for SF because I am struck that 1. there were much more op's than X's marked 2. some of them lasted only for short and other for a long time at a place and 3. probably therefore they changed the location but not the observed object. In other words, I know too little about the issue. If you can list the ops and dates I can mark them. Best Regards --Keysanger 17:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Stanley Sector

Hi NE,

Voila!, some data is missing like the dates, and the Scots name (violeta color) is also missing. Another details are still to be fixed (defence division border goes over the map). I draw also the roads. The data is so cluttered that the topography is scarcely seen. I think it is not spectacular, but better than the source maps ([12]) and anyway a good map for the concerning articles. --Keysanger 16:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I beleive the bright purple of the road is making it seem more cluttered than it is. Perhaps use a more cartographic colour? (Hohum @) 14:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Two sisters is also referred to as Two Sisters Ridge, not Mount Two Sisters. A key would be helpful and showing the route of Argentine withdrawals and re-inforcements. There was an attempt at a counter attack as well. I still think the approach is more suited to individial battles than one monolithic map. Would an RFC help? Justin talk 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Please use original names RI4, RI7,etc instead of IR4 which are totally strange and unknown and also per compatibilty with BIM5. And where is RI25 ? I will also add a "+" before remmants because they were from the others RI not the remmants of BIM5. If you are showing British coys we should add the RI coys deployments as well --Jor70 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a map called "The Defenders of Stanley, 11 June 1982", page 226-227 in Middlebrooks "The Fight for the 'Malvinas'", 1989. The 25th RI + many AA units were at the airport, North of the isthmus. The peninsula is only connected through one isthmus, on the above map it looks like it's connected with two isthmi. Two Sisters are AFAIK not a "Mount", just a ridge. The Argentine infantry regiments are indicated "RI 4", "RI 7" etc. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I got all the data for the map from [13]. On Wednesday I get "The fight for the "Malvinas" : the Argentine Forces in the Falklands War" of Martin Middlebrook. Until then following improvement is done:

  • use a more cartographic colour (is it?)
  • Two Sisters Ridge
  • use original names RI4, RI7,etc
  • add a "+" before remmants
  • only one isthmus

For all the others changes we need a map or a description to be integrated to the map. If necessary we delete some information of one party in order to bring the map more in line with rights of the other party. Anyway, we will bark up the wrong tree if we tend to show too much information. Please, don't forget to comment the other map. Best Regards, --Keysanger 18:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment there, may I ask you to listen to a spot of constructive criticism. You're being too ambitious to include so much material on a single map. It would be better to include several maps, each with an element of detail. Regards, Justin talk 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
RI 6 is difficult to see, it should be moved further southwest. RI 3 and RI 6 were deployed to engage a potential amphibious attack from the southeast. RI 25 was deployed at Port Stanley airport. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


British Artillery[5] Argentine Artillery[6]
-A- 79 Battery 6x105mm -E- Marine Arty. Batt. 6x105mm
-B- 8 Battery 6x105mm -F- 3 Artillery Regmt. 18x105mm, 3x155mm
-C- 7 Battery 6x105mm -G- B Battery/101st AA Regmt. 8x30mm
-D- 29&97 Batteries 12x105mm -H- Exocet launcher, (night position)[5]

I got "The defenders of Stanley, 11 June 1982" of Mideelbrook. What about?. Too much details? Should we put there the 4 Arg. Artillery units? --Keysanger 16:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions, remove Mt Wall it was of no consequence, its also Mount William. Other than that looks better than I thought. The artillery, as always, played a role. The British units were on the reverse slope of Mount Kent. Justin talk 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Which Unit was on the reverse slope of Mount Kent? --Keysanger 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC) The data for the British Art. is from "The Falklands War 1982" M.Middlebrook, p 327. But the location may be wrong: 79B is southwest of Mt. Vernet. --Keysanger 18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The artillery units are very cramped, perhaps you should create a gun symbol with 'A', 'B'.. and explain it in the legend, in the style of File:Land.ops.1.svg - maybe in two different colours (Arg. & Bri.). No upper-case letter in 'landing' in "British amphibious Landings expected". I'm not sure about the "+ remnants" at BIM 5, is that the marine engineers, artillery units and AA batteries? At last the position of the Exocet-armed trailer ITB (Instalación de Tiro Berreta), which battered HMS Glamorgan, might be nice to have. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't possible to put the artillery because the image will be displayed only with 600px. I tried it with capital letters and with a table below the image, but that uses a lot of space in the article. So no way for the Arty. If you agree, I will delete the arty data from the last image File:Crea.sandbox.svg and save the other changes to the published image File:Stanley.falklands.war.svg

I deleted "remmants", that word appeared in the web site but not in the book of Middelbrook. Also Mt Wall and Mt William weren't necessary. Best Regards, --Keysanger 11:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes has been replicated to File:Stanley.falklands.war.svg as announced. --Keysanger 11:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Argentine Artillery are not called Regiments but groups and were : "Grupo de Artilleria 3 (GA3)" (105mm + 155mm late may) and "Grupo de Artilleria Aerotransportado 4 (GA Aerot 4)" (105mm) minus its A Battery which was a Goose green. Both located at Stanley. The "remnants" were subunits from RI4 (most notably Lt Silva A Company) and RI7 after widthdrawn. --Jor70 (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jor70, I deleted the arty in the map because a table with the data/names under the map take up too much room and cluttered the map if we write the data/names in the map self. I think the editors agree with. --Keysanger 10:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd concur with that, the map is looking much better than I expected. If feared it would be cluttered but its actually turned out quite well. We don't want to try and make this do too much. Justin talk 11:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I miss the position of the Exocet-armed trailer ITB (Instalación de Tiro Berreta), which battered HMS Glamorgan. Many readers might find it useful. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo Album

30 sept 2010: This page is 93 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.

  • Why are there two photos of Anaya? (two photos of the same person.)
  • Why are there two photos of the sinking Belgrano and RFA Sir Tristram? (4 photos!)
  • Why are there two photos of Argentine and one of British POWs?
  • Why are there two photos of A4 planes?
  • Why are there 5 photos of cementeries?
  • Why are there 3 photos of newspapers/magazine?

I would propose to keep the File:FalklandsWarMontage3.jpg and delete the repetition of the photos that are in the montage. The photos of the magazine are good, very good but I also will accept to let only two of them. About the planes, I would propose to show maximal one (1) photo of any plane and no more and to diminish the number of planes. --Keysanger 14:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No sugar sherlock, you may have noticed the article was already longer and that has already been done. It would also be politic to have waited for comments on your proposal before proceeding. Regards, Justin talk 15:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The duplication between the montage and the main article is minimal. There were more instances and larger scale of Argentinian prisoners, so that seems appropriate. Anaya is virtually unrecognisable in the montage, which seems to focus on Galtieri. I agree that number of memorial/cemetery pics are high, but they just about avoid to cramp the text. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to have Two A-4 images, especially in a cramped area, so I have removed one. 3 Newspaper shots: representative of . Argentina, UK, and an "outside" view. Seems ok. (Hohum @) 19:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
That I don't disagree with. But there were numerous problems with some of the changes. For example a Fair Use image was added, which contravenes the image policy since a free alternative was readily available. I'm ambivalent about the Anaya pic, what slightly irks me is that for the first time in a long time the article has been stable and I was contemplating going for FA status again. Its fallen over the past due to the edit warring and vandalism.  :-( Justin talk 20:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The Anaya pic is highly appropiate for the lead up section in order to tone down the main perception (particullary by english sources) that this was all a Galtieri idea --Jor70 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually Jor70 has a point there, Anaya made support for the Falklands invasion a condition of his support for Galtieri as president. Justin talk 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Too many pictures and it is a picture book, no pictures and it is a telegram. The number of images is a balance. If a reader e.g. is at the "Sinking of ARA General Belgrano" section, he or she is not expected to scroll to the header to see an image of the sinking ship. In order to avoid POV the initial image has to be a montage. It is fine with a critical review of the pictures, but I agree with Hohum, Justin and Jor70 about keeping the images. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I think the article is stable enough for FA purposes - FA reviewers aren't going to mind minor changes in recent history - which this was, either way. They just don't want to review a constantly and significantly moving target. As long as the map work currently going on is made accurate and informative, which it seems to be heading towards, that change should be fine too, IMO. (Hohum @) 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I added File:MV Atlantic Conveyor Harrier.jpg and the licence states that:

This file has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its copyright holder, Imperial War Museum. This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible:
Imperial War Museum grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

So, there is NO Fair Use image. I don't see any problem to use that photo, if Justin doesn't oppose. And to change a boring flamboyant Sea Harrier photo at the hangar through a public domain Sea Harrier photo landing on a container ship during the war in 1982 is not only polite, it is brilliant.

Sorry for disturbing the stability of the article. I think you do a great job keeping the article stable. But I don't see my contributions as polemic, biased or unreferenced.

I can't realize Jor70's reasons. The photo doesn't say anything about that and can't say nothing about that because it is only a photo. A photo says only that what we already know. It confirms our prejudices. If we don't know about Anaya, the photo says nothing about Anaya.

If Anaya was the precursor of the invasion, that must be said in the text and of course well referenced and considering other doers. I doubt that it was Anaya alone. I think there must be more people involved, like Galtieri and a part of the Argentine people as scientist Carlos Escude states.

Anyway, I don't understand why must be there a photo of a person because he did (or didn't) any thing. Why not J. Thompson?, why not J. Moore? why not J. Fieldhouse, Menendez, Lami Dozo, Rex Hunt or dozens of persons who did any thing there?. Every one of them did something during the war. --Keysanger 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The copyright information added to that image was false. The IWM doesn't license images to the public domain. In response to that comment, Anaya was the driving force in the Junta's decision to invade. He initiated the incident in South Georgia, he made support for Galtieri contingent upon the invasion and he started the planning process. Justin talk 18:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Change it if you can and don't like it, but as you self verified the photo is still under public domain license in Commons and I used it.

Well, Anaya dit it, but what do we need the photo for? --Keysanger 18:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you know Anaya before today ? I already explain what you ask in this talk and is on the article itself too. --Jor70 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the errors in the copyright information have been noted and the image scheduled for deletion. I have verified it is incorrectly labelled as you can for yourself [14]. It has nothing to do with personal preference and I suggest you please stop personalising matters.
With regards to Anaya a change in caption may suffice. A work of a moment. Justin talk 19:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Better? Justin talk 19:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not stop personalising matters. I consider you as a reasonable person and I accept failures and specially mine. If there is a consensus that the photo is well posted there, no problem, let it there. --Keysanger 21:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Role of France I

Hi guys, I have added a paragraph on the role of France but it has been removed by two contributors. Justin A Kuntz said that there is a consensus against the idea of missile codes which was one of the point of the paragraph I added. I proposed to add the paragraph without the references to the code but Jor70 asked "why mention only France", and removed the whole paragraph altogether.

Here is the paragraph I suggested to add:

France provided political support, voting with the U.S. the resolution 502 requesting the departure of Argentinian troops. It also provided unofficial military assistance during the conflict giving the Exocet's homing radar to the British Army.[1] The French also organised military exercises with Britain consisting in simulated attacks from French Super-Etendard and Mirage aircrafts used by Argentina to allow British Harrier pilots to train against them.[2] French and British intelligence also worked together to prevent Argentina to obtain more Exocets on the international market.[3]

It was added in the section "Initial British response to the invasion". The title of the section is maybe not the best but it talks of the start of the war where mentioning France was the most relevant I thought.

Why mentioning the help of France (question from Jor70)? First, I'd say that the section does not mention only France but also the the U.S. diplomatic help.

More importantly, here is the case I would made in favour of making clear (even briefly) what was the position of France during the conflict. The new UK-France defence Treaty has raised important concerns in the UK on the "reliability" of France as an ally. The issue of the Falklands in particular has been raised by several journalists including Nick Robinson (BBC) when he addressed Nicolas Sarkozy at the press conference of the signature of the Treaty. The simple question was: what would France do if the Falklands crisis was to happen again?

Worryingly, the media presented lots of inaccurate assertions that France was 1) opposed to the British intervention (Daily Mail), and 2) sold Exocets to Argentina during the conflict Daily Mail, The Independent, Daily Express, BBC Newsnight (3' guest Tim Collins who did not face contradiction).

On the contrary other newspapers found necessary to mention the supportive role of France during the conflict, like The Economist, or The Evening Standard.

From this it appears clearly that 1) the reality of the position of France as an ally or not in the war matters in the public debate and that 2) inaccuracies are widespread regarding the role of France during the war. This, in my opinion, fully justifies that this long article on the Falkland war should at some point mention the role of France with a factual and neutral description. Jor70 wonders somehow whether the role of France was that important to be mentioned. One could observe that the smaller article on the French version of Wikipedia mentions this role. More importantly one could look at what the main British leaders during of the war said about the role of France. In her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher said "I was to have many disputes with President Mitterrand in later years. But I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support throughout the Falklands crisis.[1]. Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict said in a 2002 Telegraph article "France was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war".[2]

Given this evidence, given the new importance in the British public debate about the role of France during this conflict and given the inaccuracies spread in some mainstream media, it seems to me that a short description of the exact role of France makes perfect sense.

I hope I have convinced you. If so I'd suggest to add the paragraph where I put it initially. If you think that things should be written differently or that the place of this information should be different in the article, your suggestions are most welcome.Gpeilon (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Im not aware of the current media discusion you mention, but in any case, that probably should go to aftermath or a new article. My point to revert was in order to maintain some balance. e.g. You mention France cooperation such as diplomatic ( All UE except Spain and Ireland, Denmark with some reservations do so ), train mirage air combat and sue/exocet embargo. This cannot be compared to the delivery of AIM9 [15],Shrikes and tons of materials/supplies made by the US, and the so called chile connection [16] [17], these too countries have a lot more influence on the battle than the help given(or refuse) by France. Also will be unfair to mention only these and not to add the military help given by Peru,Brazil, Venezuela and IAI(Israel) to Argentina as well --Jor70 (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jor70, sorry for messing up the order of the page and thanks for reporting this at the end!
Sure Britain got the help of many countries. But in order to assess the importance of French help, we can look at what has been said by the most informed informed people on the issue, Thatcher and Nott (Defence Secretary). While the US were pretty lukewarm with the British intervention, they described how France offered support for an intervention from day one. Here is what Nott said in his memoirs:
"In many ways, Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies. They had supplied the Argentines with Mirage and Super Etendard aircraft in the earlier years; but, as soon as the conflict began, Mitterrand's defence minister got in touch with me to make some of these available so that our Harrier pilots could train against them before setting off for the South Atlantic. The French also supplied us with detailed technical information on the Exocet, showing us how to tamper with the missiles."
Should we make the choice that in spite of this, the help of France does not deserve mention in a 12,000 words article? At the same time this is an issue of higher interest for the current public sphere after the signature of the new defence Treaty between Britain and France. And as I showed (you can click on the links of the newspapers), there is plenty of wrong information in mainstream media about it (hence the added value of a rigorous and relevant Wikipedia).
I understand that the question of the position in the article should be thought carefully, I chose the (imperfect) solution of the section on Initial British response. I tried to write a short paragraph. This may be a good compromise as French help mainly mattered in the preparation stage. Or would you see it fitting best somewhere else in the article? Would you prefer a new section on "Position of third countries" where this info on France could be added and contributors could fill relevant information about other third countries? Gpeilon (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Quotation:" the Exocet's homing radar to the British Army." - Why on Earth should landlubbers need information of sea skimming anti-ship missiles?? Anyone who assumes Royal Navy is part of the army, can't be very well informed in this matter. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That could be a translation problem. In German and French "Armee" means army or/and navy. I agree with Gpeilon. A new, short, chapter "Position of third countries" is missing in the article. --Keysanger 00:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point Keysanger, however the source Memoirs of Mitterrand’s psychoanalyst is in English and is devoid of the word "army". Hence it is Gpeilon's own words and indicative of why he used fiction as a source. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I am French and this is my poor translation. As Keysanger said in French army is a wide generic term for militiary forces. My mistake. Note, though, that the Memoirs of Mitterrand’s psychoanalyst is only one source . There are also the Nott memoirs and his article in the Telegraph in 2002 which I quoted. It is a bit unfair for you to say that I proposed only one source and to give the one with the most wacky title! Gpeilon (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well the "Memoirs of Mitterrand’s psychoanalyst" is a standing joke in this forum. It has been used as proof for all sorts of theories. Anyone citing it, French or not, will raise a few eyebrows. It was a knee-jerk reaction of mine, sorry, just go ahead with the French involvement. A piece of good advice; avoid "memoirs..." like the plague ;-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection in principle to the addition of a paragraph as proposed but the justification provided is not one supported by wikipedia's policies. We don't have content dictated by the tabloid press, the relevant guideline would be due coverage. That said I have problems with the proposed content. The mention of the Exocet based on that book as a reference is not acceptable to me. The Exocet homing radar head was originally developed at Hatfield in the UK, the British had the weapon in-service and were very familiar with it. The revisions in the AM-39 were well-known and given the source is based on very dubious grounds I simply wouldn't include it. The political support and dissimilar aircraft training yes I consider that relevant and per WP:DUE we could make a place for it. Justin talk 09:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your points Justin. I must say that my justification went beyond the presence in the tabloid press (which I agree would be a bit weak). The inaccuracy on the French position was also published in a quality newspaper like The Independent and said on the BBC program Newsnight. But more importantly, my case was about the new relevance of this issue following the so called Anglo-French Treaty. The Falklands crisis scenario was at the centre of the political discussions about the relevance of such a Treaty. It started right in the press conference of the Treaty's signature where Nick Robinson, political editor of the BBC, asked Sarkozy what France would do if a 1982 scenario was to happen. Later, Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, also asked in the media the same question. Typing "UK France Falklands" in Google News will show you how much this issue has been discussed in British media. I think that all this indicate that there is a significant concern about what would France do in a Falklands scenario. This concern goes well beyond the tabloid press. As a consequence, what France did indeed do in 1982 become more relevant as it gives a benchmark to the present debate. It is for this reason that I think a short mention of the French position would be in perfect accordance with WP:DUE, as you say. Even more so considering that inaccuracies over the real position of France have been spread in the media.
Regarding the Exocets, I am no specialist in military weaponry, and I just quoted to the letter what Nott (Defence Secretary during the conflict) said. He may indeed have made a mistake on this point (I imagine he is a politician, not a military). Gpeilon (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I can not imagine a short chapter explaining this, .e.g., suppose that anyone would like to add the reason why Chile supported the UK, so why not also included the German reason for it ? If we go ahead with this, we need a new article like those about government responses. --Jor70 (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think like Keysanger that a section "Position of third countries" would make sense in the main article. As a reader, I would be interested in it. The relative weight of each third country should follow WP:DUE to avoid uncontrollable expansion. But if you really think it is inappropriate what about a shorter paragraph, located where I put it initially, in the "Initial British response to the invasion". Removing the Exocet bit which is contentious for some contributors, the new paragraph could be shorter like this:
France provided political support, voting with the U.S. the resolution 502 requesting the departure of Argentinian troops. The French also organised military exercises with Britain consisting in simulated attacks from French Super-Etendard and Mirage aircrafts used by Argentina to allow British Harrier pilots to train against them.[1] French and British intelligence also worked together to prevent Argentina to obtain more Exocets on the international market.[2]
Given that the paragraph already list the US political support, this small paragraph would not be completely irrelevant. It would be an easier solution than to start a new section (which I would prefer personnally).Gpeilon (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Political (and economical) support was irrelevant to the conflict result, you cannot summarize third countries support with your proposal, e.g. to name such a few:

  • Without... the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands (Margaret Thatcher) [18]
  • His (Caspar Weinberger) staunch support later earned him a British Knighthood. He provided the United Kingdom with all the equipment she required during the war. Ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. All this was done very discreetly. [19]
  • had the Americans decided to oppose Britain’s recovery of the Islands, then the war would have been impossible and Thatcher’s political demise all but assured.”[3] The sophisticated weaponry supplied by the Pentagon, such as the Sidewinder air-to-air missile and the Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missile, helped to minimize British casualties. Especially crucial was US intelligence [20]
  • The chilean military support talked by itself on the two refs I already posted. Own words of a FACH general: I did everything possible for Argentina to lose the war [21]

This topic is hardly controversial and will bring back lots of discussions. Your proposal to reducted this to a mirage training and exocet embargo is not acceptable. --Jor70 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jor70, Discussions aren't intrinsically bad when they are guided by good will as in our case and critic to the work is the seed of improvement. Most of us agree that political support and others (intelligence, economical) are relevant and should be presented to the readers and at the moment there is nothing about in the article. Because of different reasons French, US and Chilean support for the Brits are often mentioned when the war is explained.
Do you have a proposal which cases have to be expose as support for Argentina?. Peru and her Mirages and Cuba because of support within the "Non-Aligned Movement"?.
We can say what was delivered, when and the reasons of the support. Of course we use the same criteria for both belligerents and we try to describe it as briefly as possible. Best regards, --Keysanger 21:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree, I understand Jor70's concern about possible subsequent discussions, but even if it was to give us more work to keep the info tidy and rigorous, this is not a criteria not to mention a piece of information. Also I actually do not think the facts about France's involvement are that controversial. I have done some research on it to write the paragraph, and I have only found on one side snappy statements made without reference in the media suggesting France was opposed to Britain and/or supplied Argentina during the war, versus arguments with sources (Thatcher's and Nott's memoirs) explaining in more details what was the French position. Gpeilon (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


SLimming the proposed text slightly and rephrasing for English grammar usage:

Justin talk 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for rephrasing it Justin! I think it'd would make sense in the paragraph "Initial British response to the invasion" which already mention the support of the US. It is maybe not the "optimal" way to include the information. But it is pretty satisfying as it is. As the French help was mainly in the preparation stage of the conflict, including this info in this paragraph is actually not irrelevant.Gpeilon (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm happy to put it there, what does the rest think? Justin talk 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
a good agreement. best regards --Keysanger 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with France ?!, and all this because newspaper blogs recently published ridiculous assertions . As I said and demostrated France help was irrelevant compared to the US and Chile and inserting this paragraph as is on the article will lead to great misinformation --Jor70 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the minor scope of the aid is described, how can it be misinformation? The two sentences proposed doesn't seem to be undue weight, and is entirely appropriate. (Hohum @) 23:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is wrong and irrelevant to tell people what France do when the final effects of such actions on the war did not have the same weight as others , even more if we are doing this because some blogs ! if you feel so necessary then I suggest this:

Had the Americans decided to oppose Britain’s recovery of the Islands, then the war would have been impossible and Thatcher’s political demise all but assured, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, which earned him a British Knighthood, provided the United Kingdom with all the equipment required during the war ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles and all this was done very discreetly. Chile also give support to Britain in the form of Intelligence about Argentine military and radar early warning. France blah blah blah ... On the Argentine side, Peru and Venezuela effectively send aircraft spare parts, Brazil leased two P-95 maritime patrol aircraft and israeli IAI advisors already on the country continue their work during the conflict

This is far more real --Jor70 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some references (page number) for the allegations?. --Keysanger 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

allegations ?

  • Had the Americans decided to oppose Britain’s recovery of the Islands, then the war would have been impossible and Thatcher’s political demise all but assured, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, which earned him a British Knighthood, provided the United Kingdom with all the equipment required during the war ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles and all this was done very discreetly.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

  • Chile also give support to Britain in the form of Intelligence about Argentine military and radar early warning.

[6] [7]

  • France blah blah blah ...
  • On the Argentine side, Peru and Venezuela effectively send aircraft spare parts, Brazil leased two P-95 maritime patrol aircraft and israeli IAI advisors already on the country continue their work during the conflict

[8] [9] [10]

--Jor70 (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you give the page number in the case of the Brasil help?
"Had the Americans decided to oppose Britain’s recovery of the Islands, then the war would have been impossible". This sentence, does describe a real fact or a supposition of Weinberger?
We have to expose facts to the reader not suppositions. We do discuss about facts, about references to facts and about the due weight of facts. The Wikipedia rules are clear in this matter.
with all the equipment required during the war really all the equipment? I thought somethings like Hermes and the Harrier are made in the UK? aren't?
which earned him a British Knighthood, we write that in the "Caspar Weinberger" page.
What does this support?
--Keysanger 16:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This navel gazing is all very well but its completely unrelated to the edit proposal. Can we stick to the point please and comment on the proposal. Jor70 obviously feels it shouldn't be included but I'm at a loss as to understand why precisely. Justin talk 16:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jor70. Regarding France, I have given references about concrete help (intelligence and military training), so it is a bit unfair to characterise it as "blah blah" relative to other countries involvement. Regarding those. The fact that the US did not oppose the invasion cannot really qualify as help. From what I have heard (but I will let the specialists on this issue confirm this or not), the US were very lukewarm regarding this operation and would have preferred negociation with Argentina. You quote Chile military intelligence help. It is also what France gave.
Most importantly, the point is that the UK have signed a "50 year" military agreement with France last week. In particular, in few years there will be a situation where the UK will not have an aircraft carrier with jets due to budget cuts, they will be dependent on the French aircraft carrier in case a military action is necessary. The Falklands war is a symbol in Britain of a situation where it had to stand for its interest alone (without the US in particular). As unlikely as it can be, there is clearly an anxiety about what would happen if Argentina was to attempt to take the Falklands again. This is why this issue has been widely discussed in the media (well beyond the tabloid press, see The Economist, The Independent, The BBC). As a consequence, there has a been a renewed interest about what France indeed did during the 1982 conflict. It seems to me that in this context, adding two factual sentences on France in a 12,000 words article is informative and relevant regarding WP:DUE.
I understand your concern to avoid over expansion of the article, but is it really your stance, given all what I and other contributors have said, that there is no place whatsoever for two sentences about France in the article? What would be your compromise solution? Gpeilon (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
None of what you suggested is reason to include material per wikipedia's policies. The machinations of the tabloid press don't dictate content. However, as I pointed out there is room per WP:DUE, you need to work within our policy guidelines and unfortunately your stated reason to include content is clouding the issue as it isn't a relevant reason. Justin talk 16:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
answering Gpeilon about my compromise solution that would be the one already wrote as "if you feel so necessary then I suggest this" ! But again, if all this is due your concern about Britain to not have any carrier in future years, then the proper place would be the article about that new French treaty not here --Jor70 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Gpeilon, sorry if I offend you with the blah blah, I only tried to not repeat what you had already posted
  • Justin, my position is clear: not to show France military involvment without mention US and Chile which were far more important. All goes or nothing. I also tried to balance my sentence with the help received by AR
  • Keysanger, could you please be a little mature here?, nobody said Hermes is american. the fact Weinberger received his Knighthood "mostly" per the 1982 war talked by itself. And I do not posted a single supposition, are all facts, read the refs!!!

--Jor70 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jor70, Some one used your computer and wrote ... provided the United Kingdom with all the equipment required during the war ... ... This is far more real --Jor70 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
--Keysanger 19:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
"He provided the United Kingdom with all the equipment she required during the war. Ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. All this was done very discreetly." [1] WHAT PART DID YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ?? --Jor70 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Jor70, you are screaming again.
all the equipment means Hermes is american and not nobody said Hermes is american. Take a look in Logic. --Keysanger 15:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
"All goes or nothing" is not a valid rationale for inclusion or exclusion of sourced information. The information about French involvement is reliably sourced, concise, and relevant. If there is reliably sourced information about other aid, of course that should be included as well. (Hohum @) 19:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 :"All goes or nothing" is rationale in the way we must show a neutral and balance perspective, we cannot only show one military support and even worst if that was not the most important --Jor70 (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually discussed dissimilar aircraft training with Ryan some time ago and we had planned to put it into the article some time ago. We're talking about 2 sentences and supporting references. If you wish to include additional material then propose an edit. I don't feel ultimatums are helpful. Justin talk 12:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Jor70, multiple editors have already suggested the addition of other aid, including me, in the post you replied to. (Hohum @) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Great. Could any english native speaker explain Keysanger the sentence all the equipment she required , thanks --Jor70 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that statement is that it isn't true. For example whilst it is generally presumed the US provided satellite intel, that is not true. The British asked for such coverage but the US refused to retask them from NATO duties. AIM-9L, Shrike, fuel at Ascension, Stingers but the support was actually less significant that is generally presumed. Justin talk 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that officially true, but only because they havent any available, in fact a KH-9 was launched may11 [22] and according Jane's Space Directory 1999-2000 Big Bird 17 launched 11 May 1982 watched the Falklands War. [23] presumibly without success . What is confirmed is that they did provide sat comms. --Jor70 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually to correct that statement, they allowed the British to continue using Satellite Communications already fitted to their warships that could in theory have been denied. They did not strictly speaking provide satcom for the war; though yes additional bandwidth was purchased. That pedantic comment aside, if you do a little digging, every satellite in orbit is documented by enthusiasts, they couldn't have changed the orbit without someone noticing. EG, (I used to have a tracker for the toolbox lost on an ISS mission from the shuttle. The lack of satellite intelligence meant the British had to use good old fashioned reconnaisance by special forces. Whether it is "officially true" or not is immaterial we report what the sources say. Justin talk 12:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede Changes

Apolgies to the two new editors, I had not realised that the note about the lede consensus has been removed. I have restored it now. Welcome and may I add an extra explanation for my reverts of your edit. Distance is discussed in the article, so adding such details in the lede was unnecessary, may I suggest you read WP:LEDE. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Distance is not necessary (And the information may appear to be an attempt to bias), not heard much on the additional alternative name. --Narson ~ Talk 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
MFIreland unfortunately failed to heed my comments and reverted anyway [24], nor has he responded to my user page request. I'm not risking a further revert to enforce the consensus as I can't find the mediation case that fixed it. If you notice here there is a map here that pretty much duplicates the information. I believe this to be a case of lede fixation. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay this morning. My computer froze. I oppose on similar grounds to the others: it's too much detail for the lede and may be taken as being a political point.
FWIW it wasn't a mediation case, rather a very long, detailed and bad-tempered discussion over a range of pages which ended in early 2007 (IIRC) that determined the current consensus on the lede. It was felt that the topic had been looked at from every angle at that time and that we'd thus ask editors to discuss changes on talk before being bold. I don't believe that this is an unreasonable request given the controversial nature of the topic.
The presence or absence of the message does not (of course) change the fact that, once reverted, MFIreland should be willing to discuss his change with other editors in order to establish a consensus on it. Sadly, he doesn't appear to be. Pfainuk talk 18:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You are correcting yourself Justin/Pfain ;) Tch. --Narson ~ Talk 19:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My edit was made before the note was added, therefore in reverting of my edit you failed to heed your own note. The note was added without consensus itself and therefore should be removed.--MFIrelandTalk 19:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again as I explained above, there was some time ago a rather painful episode by which the current lede evolved. There was an agreement that a note should be place on the page to request any changes to the lede should be brought to the talk page first to prevent further outbreaks. I found last night this has been removed at some point, so I restored it. I have also explained this on your talk page. I did not do this to frustrate your edit.
May I suggest that you take the time to read WP:BRD as this is useful for avoiding edit wars. May I also recommend WP:3RR as you're now at 3 reverts and risk a block.
May I also ask you to consider this map which rather neatly illustrates the point I believe you're trying to make. I don't think duplicating this in the lede helps the article. Lets not get off on the wrong foot eh? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over this talk page and I can see nothing about an agreement being made that a note should be added to the lede section. From what I can see the note was only added yesterday by user:Wee Curry Monster/Pfainuk after I had made my edit. Also I have not performed more than three reverts on this article within a 24-hour period.--MFIrelandTalk 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't last night either and TBH I may have been confused with the Falkland Islands article which has this warning <!--Do not edit this article to include or remove any Spanish names without first discussing it on Talk. Any substantial changes without consensus on Talk may result in an immediate block from editing.-->. I thought the same was here but I may well be wrong. In which case I'll remove it. I have a nagging feeling there was though and it stemmed from a medcab discussion, so its not necessarily here on the talk page.
I've counted and you have 3 reverts, hence, my comment on 3RR, if I'd suspected you would edit war I would have issued a formal 3RR warning by the way - so you can take that how you will. However, I don't tend to do 3RR reports the one you have seen concerned a disruptive editor from a while back and discussion with him is impossible.
Do you take my point about the map and duplicating information may I ask? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) So, you're arguing that you don't have to discuss your edit because there wasn't a little note asking you to at the top of the article? I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia works. You've now been reverted by three different editors. You have also had reasoned opposition to your edit on the talk page. If you are unwilling to discuss your edit, you should assume that consensus is against you and cease reverting. Pfainuk talk 22:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The map does not show distances I made in my edit.--MFIrelandTalk 00:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusation and counter accusation of vandalism in edit comments, over the inclusion of distances in the lead is ridiculous. I urge all parties to calm down, and certainly don't edit war.
I can see the point of view that the general distances each nation had to travel to the conflict are a notable and unusual features of the conflict - but I can also see that specific distances are perhaps too granular - and could be considered rather pointy. (Hohum @) 01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There was a consensus on the lede which MFIreland has ignored and even when asked to come to talk to discuss it has failed to do so. It is hard to AGF when he has previously been blocked for anti British POV editing. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There's also the baseless accusation of sockpuppetry to consider. But it still comes down to the same thing as before. MFIreland has been asked repeatedly to discuss his edit and has refused to do so. Objections to the edit have been raised by multiple editors - that it makes the lede too long; that it is unnecessary detail that could be taken to bias the article; that it is lede fixation and that the substance of the information is already included. MFIreland hasn't even tried to address any of these points. Nor has he made any argument in support. Unless he is willing to join the discussion, we must conclude that consensus is against him. Pfainuk talk 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)