Talk:Falklands War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Driving on the left

There is a typically British sentence which says the islands' residents continued to drive on the left. This sounds like a big act of defiance, but perhaps the fact that the vast majority of the islands' roads are single track should be pointed out? We're hardly talking six lane motorways here! --MacRusgail 10:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A road only has to have two lanes in order that the side of the road on which ones drives becomes important - not six lanes. However it could do with some references.

84.70.159.152 06:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with this is that the vast majority of Falklands roads don't even have two lanes. This is partly what sets off my BS detector that it's probably some propaganda story cooked up by the press or British military. Sure, the Falklanders resented the invasion, but why make reference to something which is fairly ludicrous on closer examination? The only place to have two lane roads in the islands is Stanley. The only half decent road is the one going out to the airport. Most of the rest are so bad that I think you drive on whichever side of the road you're least likely to become bogged down in! --MacRusgail 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. The Falkland government itself even admits that the road network wasn't really well developed until AFTER the Argentine surrender - [1]

P157 "The Falklands War", Marshal Cavendish 1983 has an image and text that says "...And the Argentine attempt to make thje islanders drive on the right provoked them to play chicken with the occupiers" Confused coyote 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A single track road absolutely still needs rules, you either pass somebody on the left or on thre right and if not everyone follows the same rules there will be chaos or worse. All this one laner stuff is completely irrelevant regardless of the original research idea that it doesnt matter of certain wikipedia edioptrs which defies common sense, SqueakBox 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"War" or "conflict"

I've heard it stated that the Falklands was a conflict, not a war, as neither side officially declared war. Is this correct? Our article doesn't seem to refer to this, either to confirm it (which would require an article name change!) or to scotch it as an urban myth. Certainly, contemporary politicians seemed to be careful to call it a conflict. --Dweller 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no formal declaration of war - but these days it seems to have gone out of fashion - see Declaration of war by the United States. Falklands War is by far the more common term War Conflict. I'd suggest leaving it as war. Megapixie 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, use of the word "pacific" in place of "specific" is also common, but it's still incorrect. If it is incorrect, we can move and redirect. If it's an urban myth, we should note it as such in the article. Declaration of war by the US is irrelevant, as it wasn't a party to the war/conflict! --Dweller 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The common name for it is "Falklands war" so that's the article name. GraemeLeggett 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Argentina still wants the Falklands Islands and Britain is spending a lot of money on Mount Pleasant. Recent politicians would like to solve the disagreement peacefully. In such an atmosphere the political correct word "conflict" is better then the word "war". Like two drunks in the court trying to degrade their beer fight to a debate.

What happened in 1982, was that the armed forces of two sovereign states were fighting. If that wasn't a war, I don't know what should be called a war.

Hitler didn't declare war prior to invading Poland in 1939, so it should be called "World Conflict Two". The declaration of the MEZ (all ships being sunk by nuclear submarines 200 nautical miles from the Falklands Island) April 12th was a declaration of war IMHO.

I don't know User:Dweller's agenda, but it doesn't make the world more peaceful to rename wars as conflicts. IMHO the everlasting dispute between Argentina and UK could be the "Falklands Conflict" and the bloody incident could be the "Falklands War". Necessary Evil 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no agenda, other than wanting Wikipedia to be accurate and I resent the comment. Not sure what I've done to deserve assuming bad faith. I'm trying to establish or scotch an urban myth, as explained at the top of the thread. After Hitler invaded Poland, Britain declared war. I have actually now found a reputable source for support of what I thought might be a myth - the style guide for the Times newspaper asks journalists to refer to this as "the Falklands conflict because war was never formally declared; if the phrase has to be used, write Falklands war (l/c) [i.e. lower case for the w of war]" ([2]). --Dweller 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is still referred to as the Falklands War by the vast majority (including the Spanish equivlanet in Spain), no matter what one newspapers says. Interestingly it says to use Six Day War, but this was also never declared. Astrotrain 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If a country declares that all ships within 200 nautical miles of the UK will be sunk - without warning, that would definitely be a declaration of war. Since a war is a war, as long as one of the participants declares it, the Falklands War was a war, dixi.

However, in the seventies Iceland and the UK had coast guard cutters and warships ramming each other. The British newspapers called it the "Cod War" - a pun on the term "Cold War". So if newspaper editors should be in charge of the naming of wikipedia's articles, there would be total chaos.

I'm sorry that user:Dweller is resented, but at least I didn't wrote "hidden agenda", for what it's worth.

Stalingrad is called Volgograd today, but it is still called the "Battle of Stalingrad", not the "Battle of Volgograd". The Cold War wasn't declared at all, but nobody would understand the "Cold Conflict". If the Falklands War is renamed to "Falkvinas Conflict", contents would be: "- the British conflictships were conducting antisubmarine-conflictfare, when suddenly one of them was hit by a missile. The conflicthead of the missile didn't exploded - 11,313 Argentinians were PoC (Prisoners of Conflict)-" and in 2007 the conflict veterans would be commemorating the "skirmish of Mount Longdon", the air conflict, the "skirmish of Goose Green" etc. Necessary Evil 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about "hidden" agenda and if that was an apology, it's pretty lame, but I'll accept it. Many of your other arguments are inherently and obviously logically flawed. There's no point arguing if this is the level of debate. I sense that there's some POV flying around here, or perhaps there's a history of POV regarding this article. Given the subject matter, perhaps that's inevitable. I'll make a light edit, hopefully POV-free and non controversial. As with anything in WP, if you think I've got it wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me and I welcome this. --Dweller 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I admit that my last paragraph was pretty babbling. The NPOV issue here has primary been to avoid nationalistic statements like:"our brave boys exterminated the bastards" or "the cowardly enemy murdered our heroes" etc. Compared to http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_las_Malvinas where Argentine nationalists are claiming that 1.300 Britons died on the Falklands Island in 1982 and are writing "MALVINAS BELONGS TO ARGENTINA" frequently, I think that en.wikipedia is pretty NPOV. But you seems to refer to another type of POV?? Necessary Evil 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, I agree that the name should stay "war". Falklands Conflict could be a new page, assuming somebody wishes to create it, and its contents could be the history and the continued "fights" about sovereignty of the islands (of which the war was just a chapter). However, I believe that Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands has this well covered so that may not make sense either. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the blanking of the section I added to the article last night. Astrotrain's edit summary "irrelevant what the times calls it, it is the Falklands War in almost all sources (inlcuidng Spanish equivalent" is both false (use of the terminology is fairly widespread, with >1.1 million Google hits) and contrary to WP policy, as The Times is a reputable source. Other reputable sources include The Telegraph ([3]), The Sun ([4]), The Guardian ([5]), The Financial Times ([6]),the RAF ([7]), the British Army ([8]) and the Navy ([9]). --Dweller 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is an article about the war- not what some newspapers might happen to call it now and again. The Telegraph article for example mentions "Falklands War" about four times, and "Falkalnds conflict" only once- so it seems to be just a writing style. Astrotrain 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose then that it's irrelevant how the British armed forces refer to it. --Dweller 10:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The offical account is titled "Official History of the Falklands Campaign", but I personally go by "titles should represent common usage" from WP:naming GraemeLeggett 11:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The times style guide probably differs from WP:MoS in hundreds of ways. Looking at the times online "Falklands Conflict" is used 91 times without "Falklands War" where as "Falklands War" is used 264 times without "Falklands Confict". The Sun (hardly a good source) "Falklands War" 174 times without "Falklands Conflict" Falklands Conflict 3 times without Falklands War. The Telegraph Falklands Conflict without Falklands War 169 times and "Falklands War" without "Falklands Conflict" 500 times. The RAF is about 40/60 in favour of "Conflict", but the MoD as a whole is massively pro "Falklands War" [10]. NavyNews is split about 40/30 in favour of "Conflict". "Falklands War" is clearly the most commonly used term. Megapixie 11:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing (and never have disputed) that "War" is the more commonly used term. Have you read the edit I made to the article last night? I can't really understand why it was necessary to blank the content. --Dweller 11:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The "issue" is called in spanish "Guerra de las Malvinas", not "Conflicto de las Malvinas". I stand for War. --Neigel von Teighen 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's incorrect, the official name is Conflicto del Atlantico Sur reflecting the fact Georgias and Sandwichs are also in the disputed. Guerra de las Malvinas is more often related to a cultural impact, Jor70 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

it lists here who signed the agreement that ended the conflict. It specifies who was Argentinian, but only says "Royal Marines" instead of something like "British Royal Marines". I think the British should be added to make the article more netural.    Codu    talk    contribs    email   17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO "Royal Marines" is the name of the Royal British Marines in the English language. If in doubt, there is a wikilink. To everyone "Royal Air Force" means "Royal British Air Force" and "CIA" means "United States Central Intelligence Agency". The other Wikipedia have similar words: In German "Luftwaffe" (Air Force) means the "German Air Force" and in French "Marine Nationale" (National Navy) means the "French Navy".

Furthermore Argentina is not a monarchy, so Royal Marines cannot be confused with the Argentine marines. Necessary Evil 11:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding MI6 activity

If I remember correctly, John Nott disclosed / claimed in his memoirs that during the war MI6 bought up open-market stocks of Exocets through front companies, and that their operatives sabotaged other Exocets that were available for sale. Anybody know any more about this? Regards, Notreallydavid 07:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's discussed in Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy from Napoleon to Al-Qaeda by John Keegan.ALR 08:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Much obliged. Notreallydavid 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ascension

The main British airbase was at Ascension, correct? Could a picture be placed in the article so people know where it is in relation to Las Malvinas? Fephisto 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: because it is still rather far away, isn't it? Fephisto 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To where, sorry? <_<

According to England, Falkland Islands. Fephisto 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we an drum one up. --BadWolf42 00:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks pretty good in the article. Fephisto 01:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1976 warning

Documents released under the Thirty year rule show that Harold Wilson's governement was warned of possible invasion in 1976[11]. I think this should go in the article. Totnesmartin 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I'm a bit annoyed. I spent a few hours working on the page, but most of my changes have been removed - without discussion or comment - by BadWolf42. I don't spend my time here for the effort I put in to be thrown away by someone who happens to disagree with me but doesn't have the decency to actually explain why and justify his views. Toby Douglass 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I spent an hour wading through the changes which were mostly unsourced commentary, prose or technically inaccurate. I couldn't fit all the reasons into the edit boxes, I hoped the reasons would be obvious.

Where appropriate I tried to formalise your contributions to a more encyclopedic tone, however, yes, I expunged a fair amount.

For what it's worth, a breakdown of why I edited certain sections:

• Life under the occupation

POV and unsourced, written in a casual tone.

• Task force

Speculation, emotive commentary.

• Black Buck

Unsourced statement about maps that I've never seen in any of the texts, incorrect and inconsistent asseration about crater, repairs and the ability of Stanley to operate fastjets.

• Belgrano

Speculation, casual tone, questionable deduction about armour. Excessive commentary.

• Sinking of Sheffield

Technical errors. Casual tone.

Anything you think I've removed unjustifiably? A sourced version of life under the occupation has now been added, and neutered, and I think now contributes, for example. I've also tried to edit and formalise where appropriate and only expunge if it really contributes little.

--BadWolf42 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)