Talk:Falklands War/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Replace Spanish translation with alternative name

My initial proposal appears to have been overrun by hispanic users and anti-British users wishing to add extreme minority titles or retain the full title translation.

We should not translate the title. This is sensible War is not a Spanish word and Guerra is not an English word. It makes sense to mention an alternative pronoun for the Islands, however.

I once again, therefore, propose changing the heading to:

The Falklands War was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands (or Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Falkland Islands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina, whose ownership had long been disputed. (See Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for the background to that dispute.)

Could we discuss this proposal and not Malvinas War, or Falklands/Malvinas War which we can do separately if you want.

I don't feel the current full title into Spanish is appropriate -- it's never used in English speech. --BadWolf42 22:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • To state that editors who argue against your POV are "hispanic users and anti-British users" is assuming bad faith and also leaves you open to accusation of being pro-British - this site should be neither!

Also 30,000 ghits for "Malvinas War" does not equate to "extreme minority titles". As a compromise I would agree not to change the title for not and to use your title intro with one addition of the "Malvinas War" after the Falklands War which still gives Falklands promenance over Malvinas - I propose -

The Falklands War or Malvinas War was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands (or Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Falkland Islands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina, whose ownership had long been disputed. (See Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for the background to that dispute.)
Now that is a very fair compromise and the minimum I would suggest without bringing this article to a Mediation Cabal with the mediator being non British or Argentine.--Vintagekits 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that the majority of users on this talkpage are opposed to the idea. The term "Malvinas War" is one I have never heard or seen before and that is most likely true for the vast majority of the visitors to this page. NJW494 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is absolutely nothing wrong with users expressing their POV on this talk page, on the other hand we dont want it in the article. I thus support Bad Wolf's version and agree with NJW494's comments. I disagree that we should have mediation from a non Brit or non Argentine, such a comment hovers near rascism (while not being so). IMO Sebastian, Argentine in the US, and me, Brit in Spanish Central America, are probably the most genuinely neutral participants in this case and we neither of us support VintageKite's proposal, SqueakBox 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if you live in Britain or are British then I would not be surprised! But this would suggest otherwise - I have already stated that I would accept as a compromise that it not be put in the title but you are push the British POV to far by not accepting the compromised intro that I have suggested.--Vintagekits 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Your compromise is not a real compromise. It is not worth including in this article, has no mainstream recognition and has no encyclopaedic benefit. I have little option but to consider that your Irish republicanism plays some part in this crusade of yours.NJW494 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is a massive comprise by #not pushing for the Malvinas to be in the title and #allowing Falklands first. So I think it is a MASSIVE consession. The article is Sooooo pro British it is unreal - Malvinas and Malvinas War are common terms in the English language and especially in Ireland for example shown here in the Irish national broadcaster and here the Irish Government which shows that Malvinas is listed and the official term for the islands here and is given promence over Falklands. Last time I noticed we were an English speaking country - this shows the blatant anti-Argentinian and pro-British bias shown here. If there is no serious comprimise put forward it will be brought mediation to get Malvinas put into the main title because this is too pro British imo--Vintagekits 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont oppose mediation in itself. Yours is not a massive compromise as you have no chance of getting Malvinas into the title anyway, regardless of how passionately you feel that is the correct format. I remain convinced even mediation wont begin to give you what you want. Th first of your 2 links doesnt argue your case and while the second does we already have concluded it is a minority POV, hence the section at the bottom, thus even if it is so that Ireland people call it the Falklands/Malvinas War we have already included this POV and dont need to do so further, SqueakBox 00:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW neither of your links gives prominence to the Malvinas as a aname and the first does quite the opposite and implies thta Ireland people say Falklands just like Brits do, SqueakBox 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the RTE link states "known here as the Malvinas" and the Irish Government states Malvinas before Falklands ie. "Malvinas/Falkland Islands" - how is this IRisdh POV if your view is not British POV??? That smacks of blatant bias and pro-British slant - whcih the article is riddled with imo--Vintagekits 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Provide the evidence for this, Vintage. In any case, my google search proves which is the mroe common. Logoistic 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Just lost a load to an edit conflict!

English language google has by far more hits for "Falklands War" than "Guerra de las Malvinas", and vice versa for the Spanish language google. Thus, "Falklands War" should take precedent over "Guerra de las Malvinas", although the latter deserves a mention. Note that the Spanish language Wikiepdia article on "Guerra de las Malvinas" (Falklands War redirects there) not suprisingly uses the Spanish term. I think mentioning "Guerra de las Malvinas" as it is currently is fine. In fact, I'm going to be bold and edit the Spanish version to do the same thing - "Guerra de las Malvinas" taking priority but "(en ingles: Falklands War) being mentioned in the opening sentance too.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_las_Malvinas

Logoistic 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good on you. I have done so twice already. See Argentine Navy for more of the same, SqueakBox 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Other wikipedia battle examples

At Battle of the Bulge we translate this term into German but we dont call it the Unternehmen War (apologies if my German is incorrect), and I bet there isnt a single modern battle between English and non English speaking forces where we do this, so why make an exception for the Falklands War, SqueakBox 01:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you have done your arguement a lot more harm than good with this one - that article shows the foriegn language name and the 3 alternative English names - that sets a precident to have the two English names and the Spanish name in the article!--Vintagekits 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick comment from someone not interested in getting involved in the arguments, but I think you'll need to follow the example set by Battle of the Bulge if your going to get Falklands War upto FA status. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure and we can indeed add the Spanish name (I am not opposed to that) and probably more pro it having seen the Bulge example, and add the other common English term Falklands Conflict. Will you forget that you are making a big compromise by not changing the name of the article as that clearly doesnt happen at the Bulge or any other battle. And Heliogland is right that we need to see what wikipedia is doing with other battles and wars if we are serious in our intention to make for a better article, SqueakBox 02:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated elsewhere, a term is only 'neutral' because an accepted viewpoint is reached. Every position is a POV. In the case of the Battle of the Bulge I would expect little opposition to not using its German name alternately because there are very few who would support the cause of the Nazi side. On the other hand, for the Falklands there is opposition to the use of the term 'Falklands', be it among Argentines, or even the likes of others such as Irish Republicans (presumably as they see a parallel with NI). In this case we must accomodate these views into a new viewpoint different from The Battle of the Bulge example. I think the translation to Spanish is acceptable, as well as using 'Falklands/Malvinas War' in certain limited contexts such as in an article on the Argentine navy. Logoistic 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
IMO its either okay to use in all articles or none, we still have to follow NPOV whatever the article and nobody is seriously claiming Argentinians, who are for the most part Spanish speakers, say Falklands/Malvinas War, they say guerra de las Malvinas, SqueakBox 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Who said, Argentinians say "Falklands/Malvinas War" - I am saying many English speaking people use the term--Vintagekits 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Logistic and I were getting sidetracked. I thought you claimed people use Malvinas War, I cant beleive there are people who arent politicians in public who use Falklands/Malvinas, thast sounds more obscure than Malvinas War, SqueakBox 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The truth is that "Malvinas War" is a fringe term used by fringe groups and with little popular English language support. It is already a concession to allow a Spanish language name into the title. Extreme minority viewpoints do not generally have much currency on wikipedia, as some parts of society hold views that are in total conflict with the mainstream and often considered offensive to the mainstream. This is one such case. NJW494 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
One swallow does not a summer make. Examples of conflict where a direct translation is not given:
Vietnam War -- Gulf War -- World War I -- World War II -- Spanish Civil War -- Spanish-American War -- Russo-Japanese War -- Polish-Ukrainian War -- Anglo-Iraqi War
Examples where an alternative name is given, but with lesser prominence.
Korean War -- Mexican Revolution
I gave up looking at this point.--BadWolf42 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Those examples are irrelevant, due as I already mention a hundred times there is not a dispute in their names convention!!! The international accepted name of the islands is Falklands/Malvinas please shut down your nationalism a second and check UN, ISO, CIA , ... Jor70 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, Jor, certainly not in any capacity similar to, say, Trinidad & Tobago. I think it is pretty much a consensus that it is very unusual (except perhaps in the most diplomatic of environments) to actually call the Islands "Falklands/Malvinas". One or the other, definitely, yes, and I believe there are even some people who freely alternate between the two names, but combining them together is simply not usual except in situations where there is a clear and strong desire to not emphasize one of the names over the other (such as UN and ISO - I am not at all certain about CIA). That might look like a case of NPOV, but it isn't; this is the English language Wikipedia, after all, and not some equal-language-rights Wiki. NPOV is no reason to avoid the declared prefered language of this Wiki, especially so when there is a fully functional Spanish language sister Wiki. Luis Dantas 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please source your claim Jor because I for one absolutely do not acceptt hat Falklands/Malvinas is the normal English. As NJW rightly points out it is an extreme minority and offensive to the majority view to call it either Falklands/Malvinas war or Malvinas War, its not done for other battles and if we did it here we would be playing into Argentinian nationalism and anti-Brit sentimnent, SqueakBox 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Exactly- the formal name is the Falkland Islands. The offical Spanish translation being Islas Falklands (as used in Spanish language EU documents for example). It is called Islas Malvinas by the majority of native Spanish speakers as they generally support the POV of Argentina's claim. In any case the different names are already mentioned on the Falkland Islands page- the most appropiate article for this. Astrotrain 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sake, are users who want nothing less than a full Argentinian interpretation of the event going to be able to veto changes to this article forever?

Luis and Astro are spot-on. The dispute is over the name of the islands, not of the war.

Argentina never legally posessed the islands, never populated the islands and never had popular support for soverignty on the islands. They are called the Falklands in English.

Argentinian supporters and anti-British users need to accept that whilst their minority POV can be represented in the name of the Falkland Islands there really is no justification for re-naming the liberation operation. --BadWolf42 04:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I am going to re-enter the alternate English language names outlined above unless there is a very strong agrument against this (one which does not invlove purely POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Vintagekits 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There are already alternative names at [[1]], is your alternative name there? Necessary Evil 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Like other wars this should be in the opening sentance.--Vintagekits 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Last call!--Vintagekits 11:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems to be starting again. We now have an NPOV tag on the [[2]] section, for reasons I don't understand. For me the use of the word "commonly" in the opening gambit seems a touch wrong too, "also known as" would suffice, to my mind. Back to the plot - what's POV in that section? LeeG 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The non neutral POV tag is because of the wording of the section which makes out that only looney commie nutters use the terms Malvinas War - which is bull. As for alternate wars use of alternate names a good example to look at would be the Irish War of Independence - this show the main name = Irish War of Independence, the colloquil (sp?) Irish name = the Tan War and the British name = the Anglo-Irish War.--Vintagekits 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at the example; that does away with "commonly" I note. The cites (numbered 2-6 for the opening statement) are interesting, two from books (neither of which I have read, are they any good?), one from a (no offence to Ray Griffin, who I assume not to be this gentleman) random contributor to a BBC bulletin board, and two from left wing websites. That does not justify "loony commie nutters" but there is a left wing bias there - 40% clear left wing, and I would not dare to pretend to know the others' political leanings. These cites are repeated, in part, for the last section. So, I can understand the use of the phrase "occasionally used by left-wing activists", but not the use of "commonly" in the opening. I assume, therefore, "commonly" can be deleted to be comparable to the Irish War of Independence? LeeG 23:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
We can do away with the "commonly" also if you wish. I added the Ray Griffin quote for three reasons 1. Its was from the BBC and no British editor could quibble with that, 2. Ray Griffin in just an ordinary guy and not representing any group and 3. He is based not British and therefore it show common usage outside of the British sphere. But if we remove the commonly it should be added to stop Squakbox's and his edit war.--Vintagekits 20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not too sure that Mr Griffin is a reliable resource, but I see your point there. I don't understand the last bit "But if we remove the commonly it should be added to stop Squakbox's and his edit war." I think I'm missing something as that reads to me "if we remove 'commonly', we must add 'commonly'" which I don't follow, sorry. Trust me, I have no desire to get into an edit war, so I'll have a thorough read here to try and see what the squabble was. Thanks for the reply! LeeG 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying he is a reliable source himself, but his use of the phrase is quoted by a reliable source and it shows "common usage" which is what some editors are asking for. What I was also saying is that I am fine with the term "commonly" being removed.--Vintagekits 23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been asked to revisit this, so I have had a re-read of the article, and the debate. I think the current text is fine, given the references cited. This is because:
  • The references at the start of the section refer to Falklands/Malvenas war, which seems to have more usage than "Malvenas War";
  • The reference given for the term "Malvenas War" is from the "League for the Revolutionary Party" website. I am guessing that is left-wing. It too co-opts the word into its own text ("war for the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands") just reversing the order from what seems the norm.
  • The fact that one gentleman uses the phrase on a BBC website does not demonstrate common usage to me (I can't find that link now to see if he uses Malvenas or Falklands/Malvenas)
In short - the current references indicate that the phrase "Malvenas War" is used by left wing Britons, and we lack any references to show other uses as a phrase in isolation (i.e. not as "Falklands/Malvenas war"). This, to my mind, makes the article read consistently with its references as it stands. It needs no change from here. LeeG 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
So do you suggest 1. the we ingore the leftist term for the war just because its leftist. Anyway its not only leftists that use it. I am sure you can pick out a few links from the 50,000 of google that will satisfy your requirement. I think it is a disgrace to wiki that the only version of the Wars name that is whitewashed from the article is the Malvinas. --Vintagekits 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, we already have "(Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas/Guerra del Atlántico Sur)" right at the start. That is as NPOV as we could be. End of story. --Guinnog 01:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect - this still ignores the FACT, the frickin indisputable FACT that many people in the English language called the Falklands wars either 1. the Malvinas War or 2. the Falklands/Malvinas War. Now in the article we have every other frickin name that is used in the English language but not the ones that involve the use of the Malvinas - WHY? I'll tell you - British POV, British propaganda, British whitewashing - until this is sorted the POV tag stays. Ignoring this issue doesnt make it go away.--Vintagekits 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)I don't agree, and I don't agree to your holding the article hostage like this, against what seems to be consensus. However I can also see you feel strongly about it. I suggest walking away from it for a few hours; I plan to do the same. --Guinnog 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you not argee with? I disagree with you accusation that I am holding this article as a hostage - infact the opposite is true - this article being held hostage by British editors like you. Can you put forward an agrument why the term Malvinas War should be whitewashed and all other alternate names should stay thats justifies your argument to disagree?.--Vintagekits 01:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't. As I pointed out above it is there, as the Spanish name, which is what it is. It is already mentioned too under the Names section. What more could you possibly want? --Guinnog 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: 50,000 Google hits; a quick perusal down the top few hits show them all to use the phrase "Falklands/Malvenas War" (mentioned in the article) not "Malvenas War" hence the article is correct as it stands. LeeG 10:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - both names - both the Malvinas War and the Falkland/Malvinas War should be highted in the lead section. The term Malvinas is not just used in the Spanish language but also in the English language and therefore should be represented as such.--Vintagekits 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it's the exact opposite. "Falklands/Malvenas War" is in the google list, I did not spot "Malvenas War" in isolation (i.e. without an attendant "Falklands". Hence it's not common, hence it belongs where it is. The article deals with it correctly. LeeG 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
SOrry I didnt understand that Lee. regards--Vintagekits 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> I don't think I am able to say it any clearer either. Not that it will stop me trying... The phrase Falklands/Malvenas War is dealt with in the right place, as it is a MINORITY viewpoint (see Google Hits discussion below). Even more of a minority viewpoint is the phrase "Malvenas War" (in fact I struggled from the 50,000 hits (I have not read them all, just perused the first few pages) to find the phrase in non Wiki mirrors and the cited website). NPOV says not to give undue weight, and we don't - the balance is right. Furthermore, adding every possible name permutation between English and Spanish in the opening paragraph makes it unreadable. The opening has the Spanish and English names, it needs no further confusion. I think I can no longer contribute new material to the debate, so I will sign off and say "Leave it how it is, the balance is right, and the text is legible". LeeG 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record; Vintagekits wrote Malvinas with an I, LeeG wrote Malvenas with an E, are you guys googling the same words?? --Necessary Evil 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my bad typing! I used the link helpfully given above by Vintagekits to do the Google hits reading. LeeG 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

recent peer review

I'm sorry I missed the recent peer review, having been absent from Wikipedia at the time. Otherwise I would have added the following comments there:

The main weakness in the article is the very poor coverage of the opposition to the war at the time. This includes the initial decision to go to war, the Peruvian peace plan, the controversies over the sinking of the Belgrano, and several other matters. My main reason for getting a Wikipedia account was to improve this aspect of the article, as I was so appalled by the current version. I then realised I would have to re-read all my books on the war (I have most of the books in the Bibliography), but it took me several days just to find them, not having read them for over 20 years! I also need to get hold of some of the more recent references, particularly where they conflict with my references. All this is going to take time, although I have taken the opportunity to make some small improvements in the meantime.

Anyway, this is just a notice of a weakness that badly needs to be addressed. I hope to be able to do it myself some time in the future, when I am able to, if no-one else does it first.

I regard this deficiency as much more serious than, for instance, the discussion over "Falklands" and "Malvinas" (FWIW I think the current version has it about right).

The other main point worth mentioning is that there is some useful information from both the German and Spanish wikis that could also be brought into this article.

--NSH001 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, and to hear from the oppostion in both countries to the war would be very useful, SqueakBox 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I join wikipedia when I found this article. At the time [3] it was just a whole pure british point of view . Since then I try to mix some argentines thoughts , sometimes with success but most of the times being acussed of doing argentine revisionism of the war just because the facts where not listed in a BBC site. Jor70 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have any concrete examples please bring them here to discuss. Personally my only interest is an NPOV article that doesnt take sides and we can certainly use reliable sources in Spanish, SqueakBox 19:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 19:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For the beginning, the performance of the Argentine Air Force FAA is despised, whilest we are talking about the efforts of the Royal Navy, the british pilots skills, etc , throught all the article


I think any new information surrounding the war would be excellent. Unfortunately there isn't much to say about British domestic opposition other than to comment on minority working class leftist politics (ie those of Mirror readers) or of protests of BELGRANO's sinking other than to mention they happened. Sadly, neither of these stand up to cross-referenced scrutiny, and so to donate extensive article-space to them would be to proffer their POV.--BadWolf42 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a huge amount that could be said about opposition to the war (the bibliography is a good place to start). As a matter of historical fact, the Mirror did not oppose the war (backing the Labour Party line instead); the two newspapers clearly opposed to the war were the Guardian and the Financial Times. The Telegraph's letter pages, as I vividly remember from the time, were full of letters from former military types stating their opposition on pragmatic grounds.
--NSH001 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well lets see what you come up with then we can discuss it or not as the case may be (only edits where there is disagreement need discussing). It would also be great to see Argentinian opposition to the war, indeed for NPOV purposesd the 2 should sit side by side. Having said that there clearly wasnt the opposition that there has been in the UK and US to the Iraq War, something I remember myself, feeling my owwn anti war sentiments were very much in a minority, SqueakBox 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also important to mote that there was not an "anti-war" lobby as such, it was opposition to the British retaking of the Falklands only. I don't recall the "anti-war" lobby marching in protest when Argentina invaded, only when the British fleet was re-assembled.Greenpeas 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Balance POV article

In order to tone down the british point of view of this article , I would like to add something like this at the top of the Analysis section :

[4] Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward said the conflict was "a lot closer run than many would care to believe."

By the time of the Argentine surrender, British losses were mounting while rations and ammunition were running low. "We were on our last legs," the admiral said. "If they had been able to hold on another week it might have been a different story."

"We won the Falklands war with a degree of luck," he said yesterday. His comments are in line with the military consensus that the war was a far more desperate operation than was understood at the time. Jor70 14:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you mis-use the term British POV.
This is certainly the accepted British Naval interpretation of the conflict, and as such is a British POV (it's also the accurate one, the Army could win the war, the Navy could only lose it). The ships were damned near falling apart and victory was siezed with only a few weeks remaining on the possible deployment schedule.
I agree this really ought to be represented more in the Military Analysis section, but the article is so jumbled it's difficult to know where. I'll certainly aid with the integration of this Naval perspective, however, if you'd like to make a start rewriting the section to accomodate it cleanly.
Cheers. BadWolf42 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nothing POV about what you said. POV tends to be more incendiary staements such as Britain was right or wrong to invade, stating the reality of the military situation isnt at all POV and certainly the National geographic programme I saw recently doesnt in any way contradict what you say, ie it was a close run thing, SqueakBox 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BadWolf had already add the sentence to the anlysis section. I think would be important to explain in the Landing at San Carlos section the given name of bomb alley, add it to the title will be very fair because the FAA response was so important as the landing itsef Jor70 17:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, as nobody seems to be contrary on this, I would change the section title and add some references about Bomb Alley Jor70 12:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

My poor brain can't quite figure out what this means: "The attack on Belgrano was the second submarine kill since the end of the Second World War, the first having been made by PNS Hangor on INS Khukri during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. It was, however, the only time that a nuclear powered submarine has done so." There seems to be a mixed tense in the last sentence. Do we mean "to date it is the only nuclear powered submarine kill" or it was the first. I think it needs to read "It is, however the only time..." rater than "it was" which makes it sound as if it no longer is, if you see what I mean. LeeG 10:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So change it. Be bold, and all. I don't personally find it confusing, but your version is no worse than the original. And yes, it is/was the only time a nuclear sub sunk an enemy vessel. Unigolyn 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead section image

Whats with the new picture? We won the war why does it show one of our ships blowing up, it seems at 1st glance as if we were the ones that lost. Im not good at this editing stuff this needs to be changed to picture that doesnt say we lost.

I agree - sounds boring I know but that picture with the royal marines hiking across the island with the union flag on their backs - thats a pretty iconic picture everyone can recognise. Lets get it changed. [Pagren]

The article needs a neutral image in the lead section, so I have replaced it with the same one used in the German Wikipedia's article. Incidentally, I think the German article is much better set out and organised than the English one.
--NSH001 08:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"We won the war why does it show one of our ships blowing up" - that pretty much somes up the unbalanced POV throughout this article - this is a British article an attempt to tempre that is met with aggresion.--Vintagekits 11:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
although, some editors have good intentions and we made great progress in the last months Jor70 11:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural impact

One of the many significant imports of Falklands War is the fierce rivalry between England and Argentine teams and fans seen on Football World cup matches. I feel this should be included under cultural impact or elsewhere. Comments welcome. Nyckid 17:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. If that was the main cause of the rivalry, it would be the same with all the UK teams. In Argentina-England matches, the Scottish fans seem more friendly to Argentina (making fun about the "hand of god" incident in mexico, and how the English were defeated). Considering the importance of football in both England and Argentina, I think the rivalry would have been as fierce as it is even if the Falklands war had never existed.201.213.16.47 06:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the "three flags"?

I was shocked to read this article and find no mention of the "three flags" proposal. Margaret Thatcher indicated she would agree to flying three flags over the islands -- the UK's, Argentina's and the UN's. See here, page 24, 2nd paragraph. The proposal was adopted by the UN, but rejected by the Argentinian military junta. --Abenyosef 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

HMS Antelope sink date

Just a quick one really, this article has the sink date of HMS Antelope as the 21st of May, yet the article on HMS Antelope (F170) has the sink date as the 24th of May. Which article needs correcting? Dave t uk 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Antelope seems to be forgotten by some media these days [5], [6] --Jor70 13:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Battle for Mount Kent

A very interesting battle that I read about was described in the book "Twilight Warriors" by Martin Arostegui. D Squadron of the SAS was inserted onto Mount Kent to observe the Argentinean garrison at Stanley. They were spotted by the Argentineans who sent the 602nd Commando Company to drive them out. So, there was a battle that night between Argentinean and British Special Forces on the mountain. The British were driven back but managed to hold onto the mountain until the Royal Marines of K Company arrived. After this there were some scattered skrimishes, and an Argentine commando with a silenced sniper rifle shot 13 British soldiers over a period of a week or so before being captured. I believe had the Argentinean SF managed to occupy the mountain in strength as they had intended to then Galtieri would've remained in power for the next ten years and the war would have ended in stalemate for the British. [[El Orangutan]

US Green Berets on Mount Longdon

Hi, I have been checking out a few forums dealing with the Falklands War 25th anniversary. I just have a question. Does anybody know about ex-US Green Berets fighting on the Argentinean side on Mount Longdon? The reason why I ask is that BBC journalist Robert Fox in "A very British war: the Falklands remembered" (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2406403.ece) recalls meeting a number of US mercenaries serving as snipers with the Argentinean Army.

Ridiculous, a very sad way to try to hide the help given by the US to UK throught all the conflict. Jor70
They were not acting for their country, the support from the US is now well understood (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/ufl6t/ ). In current conflicts, citizens acting individually fight against their own host country, this should not reflect badly on the country. Besides, the Independent article citing the US sinpers is not corroborated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:86.132.50.87 (talk • contribs) 13:18:03, June 11, 2007 (UTC).
There were no US snipers in Malvinas, among a few Argentine Army and GN commandos the rest were all Argentines conscripts and regular NCOs Jor70 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the only "foreigners" were some chileans descendents see first KIA was a chilean Jor70 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Upper hand

Recent edits by User:Elorangutan (contribs) are both poorly written (full of eufemisms and weasel words) and are intended to give an impression of harshness without actually giving any information. I will remove the comment, and hope the user agrees on discussing the issue and arrive to an agreement before re-introducing such controversial comments. --Mariano(t/c) 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

only notable naval and amphibious operation

This sentence was always since WWII and now we are already at 1974!, in few weeks more someone would find that in 1981 there was a similiar operation somewhere !! --Jor70 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact in question

I tagged the sentence for a citation because I don't know how you can really go about proving that it's still a topic of discussion in Argentina. I think it's just a dubious comment and it's hard to gauge the truthfulness of it. Imasleepviking 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance

In political analysis, the following was added yesterday:

"The United States international image was denigrated because of breaking the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) providing UK with satellite images of the Argentinian ship positions. Chile also broke the TIAR supporting UK troops."

(I've removed the "fact" template from this quote)

This reads as though it is universally acknowledged that said treaty was broken by the US and Chile - by all sides, including the US and Chile. If that's true, then fine. But somehow I doubt it, particularly given the lack of source given. If the US and Chile do not agree with this assessment, then this should be balanced with something from their side.

According to the article on the treaty, it appears that the Falklands example is significant to Mexico's later withdrawal from the system, and so it may be relevant to the political impact of the war. I just think such a bald assertion needs backing up and some balance. Pfainuk 11:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You could not expect to find a document signed "we, the chileans, broke the TIAR", They, however, openly admits they do everything they could to help Britain FACH commander declarations and yes today is universally acknowledged in latin america that the TIAR was just a tool to support US interests: a brazilian study said [7] "The deep weakening of hemispheric relations occurred due to the American support, without mediation, to the United Kingdom in the Malvinas war in 1982, which definitively turned TIAR in dead letter" Jor70 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Strange as Argentina clearly was not attacked so one wonders how anyone could claim it was broken but I note this is what the US also said, SqueakBox 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Argh two edit conflicts... Summary of what I was going to say: I've edited that paragraph to explain that the idea that the TIAR was broken is a perception in Latin America. As I understand it, the American position was that the Argentines were the aggressors and as such the TIAR didn't apply. It seems to me that it is not for us to say whether the TIAR was technically broken or not, since to do so would be to imply a POV on one side or the other of the conflict. But the fact that the TIAR was perceived to have been broken in Latin America is clear from the report Jor70 linked to, which I've taken the liberty of adding to the article. Pfainuk 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
On BBC Radio 4 on Sunday 11 June, there was a programme in which the true extent of US support was revealed. Here is a link to it [8] (alas, it streams, I can't save the file). The US "support" was predominantly the action speeding up of requisitions for supply of arms to the UK Ministry of Defense. I can't find a transcript, however, someone really interested in the war might be able to quote from the programme as it really about the conflict withing Regan's government about the war and their views (particulary about the fact that Regan had tried to make contact, acting on intelligence reports, prior to the invasion, but the Argentines refused).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:86.132.50.87 (talk • contribs) 13:13:18, June 11, 2007 (UTC).


vindicated the UK decision to develop the STOVL

The Air forces in the Falklands War vindicated the UK decision to develop the STOVL Harrier aircraft, which showed its capability of operating from forward bases with no runways. Im not sure if it is properly to mention this at least if means the UK decision to maintain 'at least the VSTOL carriers instead of nothing.. if the Royal Navy would have its ARK Royal with her air groups of Phantoms with AEW Gannets surely 6 more ships should had return to the UK and her Bucaneers would be more capable of strike any target even in the mainland. Also, how many times and with which results were used from forward bases during the hostilities ? Jor70 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Why do we have this tag here? --Guinnog 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Because of the Britsh POV stranglehold on this article as outlined in this discussion. regards--Vintagekits 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. Let's see how the discussion turns out before tagging it then, eh? --Guinnog 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, because the British editors that are attempting to whitewash the term Malvinas from every article got to do with the Falklands havent engaged in a decent debate on it since January - as proven in the link provided.--Vintagekits 01:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, there are several alternate names presented in the lead already. We already have a section entitled names which presents several more (which perhaps should be linked from the lead). Adding any more names to the lead would make it ungainly. By comparison, the es version of the article doesn't present the name "Falkland War" in the article (except for the reference section). Perhaps your time would be better spent fixing that issue. Megapixie 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are alternate names - but just the ones that the pro-Brits are happy with. Why should I "fix" the Spanish wiki article - I dont care about that article I care about this one because I only edit on English language wiki. You are still not giving me any reason why the term Malvinas should be whitewashed from this article?--Vintagekits 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that Malvinas War should remain, or whatever the spanish call it. Simply because its the name used by one of the participants. Though yes, the spanish Wiki should make mention of the falklands war, thats really not our problem over here on the English wiki. Frankly, the other wikipedia don't have the bredth of editors we have on this one so you can't expect them to be as thorough on every article. Anyway, back to the point....Malvinas War (being a translation of the argentinian name for the war) should be used in something approaching equal weight in the article. Now, in the 'BRitish Military History' Falklands war is just fine. But this is about the war itself, which had two sides. Uhm. Now where was I rambling. oh yes, the hyperbole about a 'whitewash' though should perhaps be curtailed. Its just going to polarise people against your point of view and turn it into a nationalist issue. Narson 12:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Both terms should be given equal weight. There were two sides in the war, and this would reflect that. Regards--Domer48 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree we should use both names, the Falklands War and the Spanish term for it. As we already do this, I cannot see why the NPOV tag is displayed. --Guinnog 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont know if you are ignoring the fact the Malvinas is not just a Spanish language term to make a point or you are missing the point - Malvinas is not just a Spanish language name it is both a Spanish language name AND an English language name both should be shown with promience. I am going to edit the article now to show what I mean.--Vintagekits 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Both sides are (or were, before Vintagekit's edit) already given equal weight, since the Spanish term for the war is included, including the Spanish term for the islands. That's equal weight. The extraneous English names (Falklands Conflict/Crisis, South Atlantic War, Falklands/Malvinas War and Malvinas War with appropriate explanations) should ideally be removed or relegated to the "name" section (which we do already have) - which maybe should be brought up as the first paragraph after the lead.
The situation is similar to the name for the islands themselves: in any situation, if you use Malvinas as an English word (as per pro-Argentine sources in English) or Falklands as a Spanish word (as per pro-British sources in Spanish), you imply a strong political viewpoint, and we shouldn't act as if this wasn't the case.
In English, Falklands - or Falklands War in this case - is what linguists would term the unmarked case: the case that can imply a viewpoint but can also be neutral. Similarly, "dog" can mean a male canine or a canine of unknown or irrelevant sex. By contrast "bitch" in this context can only mean a canine known to be female. In the dog article, we don't include the word "bitch" until the second paragraph after the lead, assuming that our readers are taking "dog" in the general sense. In this case, including "Malvinas War" in the lead gives a pro-Argentinian bias. FWIW reverse "Malvinas" and "Falklands" and you have the situation in Spanish.
I'm not saying that the term "Malvinas War" shouldn't necessarily be included - just that it shouldn't be in the lead, and instead should be (as it is) in the name section with an explanation that it implies a pro-Argentine or (as we put now) left-wing bias. Note that the MOS on geographic names does not say that we should give names used by small minorities equal prominence with widely accepted names - quite the opposite in fact. What I'm suggesting is effectively the third bullet point of point 2. Pfainuk 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that barring the article being changed to Falklands/Malvinas War then the Malvinas term requires a far high promience then you are suggesting otherwise we are just maintaining the undeniable pro-British perspective that currently exists. Remember this is English language wiki not English national wiki.--Vintagekits 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Where are the sources which show Malvinas War is a widely used term in English? The only one I saw in the article was a rather odd article which used the term but didn't give any sort of indication that represented a widespread usage in the English language. If Malvinas War is to be given the extremely high prominence it currently enjoys then its going to have to be properly sourced, i.e. something explaining its widespread usage in English, not something which simply demonstrates that a minority uses it.

NPOV outdent 1

I am not talking about the Spanish name of the war "Guerra de las Malvinas" which is perfectly fine, but the specific "Malvinas War" which according to Vintagekits is as equally widely used as Falklands War in English. If you're going to insist on such prominence for your term, then you'd better source it properly, otherwise you have no justification for putting it in the lead. My argument is based on Wikipedia policy, so please do not knee-jerk accuse me of pushing a pro-British POV at me as you have done to others above, but instead focus on sourcing your opinion properly. This entire argument has become rather over-blown and very unpleasant to read, either prove your case conclusively or give it up.--Jackyd101 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Guinnog 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Nothing could be further from the truth Jacky. Infact I have been trying to discuss this issue in a rational mannersince January but have been ignored, it was not until I put the NPOV tag on the article that anyway bothered to even address the issue and to be honest it kinda pisses me off that I have to stir things up a bit even to get a discussion going but this seems the waythat wiki works these days. I never said that the Malvinas is used as much as the Falklands in the English language I said it is a significant minority term, it is recognised as the equal term for the islands by the UN and due to the disputed nature of the islands we need to recognise it also. I welcome the debate by the way.--Vintagekits 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As a significant minority term (maybe 10%?) it may merit inclusion in the article, but certainly not in the lead. --Guinnog 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just had my point proven - Squeakbox has reverted my edits for months but refused invitation to enter into a discussion despite the majority of people here stating that it should be in the article - that is Class A edit-warring isnt someone from admin going to do something about this rather than giving me stick even though I have been trying to rationally bring this discussion forward for months.--Vintagekits 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember that in the case of decolonisation the UN is not necessary a neutral third party, as its stated intent is to cause decolonisation, not just to adjudicate over it, but for it to happen. Honestly? I've rarely, if ever, heard the Malvinas Term used over here as a primary term. Not even in the left wing. I have some vague recollection of the nationalist parties sometimes using the term (Alec Salmond I believe) but I could be mistaken. Either way, if we are looking at it from a purely 'whats used in English' standpoint, Malvinas /should/ have a subservient role. I think if we argue that its a two party conflict and thats the English translation of the name used by the other conflicting party then that would likely get more support. And, I hate to say, but the disputed nature of the islands is a cause of the war and nothing more, in relation to this article. If we went around naming things based on what claimants of the time called them in every article vaguely related to them, the wikipedia would be bloated with extra brackets. Lets keep the disputed nature as regards naming into the sovereignty of the falkland islands article, and keep their disputed nature as a cause of conflict in here. Narson 23:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"Honestly? I've rarely, if ever, heard the Malvinas Term used over here" - I dont doubt it Narson but that is because you are British (like Squeakbox and Gunniog) - I am not and when talkin in the English language many other nationalities use the term Malvinas either in tandem or instead of the term Falklands and that needs to be recognised.--Vintagekits 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Except your claim hasnt been proved. An American commenting on our discussion of this issue on my talk page said he'd never heard of it either (OrangeMike), and while I've only spent a month or so in Ireland I certainly didnt here it there either, SqueakBox 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Then it should go in 'other names' or somesuch. The article should name things as the participants did or in the common name if the participants called it something lost to time or simply daft. I'm in favour of Malvinas War, not for the reasons you stipulate and not in the context you put foreward. (And I'm kinda British, yes. But only kinda ;) ) Narson 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That is not how other wars deal with their alternate names as seen in this discussion why should this article be any different.--Vintagekits 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Having looked through wikipedia, you are right, having checked the naming convention on several campaign, battle and war pages, it would seem the usual method would be to call this 'Falkland's War (Also known as 'Guerra del Malvinas' (spanish) or 'Malvinas War') and then continue to use Falkland's War through most of the article. But I doubt this is the result you were debating for? [My spanish is rubbish, I know] Narson 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I doubt if anything like 1% of English speakers use this term, 1% would be several milion people, 10% would be tens of millions for what is a word with no common usage, SqueakBox 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Two wows at once First wow, Squeak actually discussing the issue and Second wow an argument based purely on POV and OR. I'll say no more.--Vintagekits 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I have discussed this issue extensively with you at Falkland Islands (and it is the same issue). OR on a talk page. That's a new one. What is POV about not wanting an extreme minority viewpoint expressed in a non common usage term in the opening, enought hat we mention Malvinas as a Spanish word but I am gl;ad that me allegedly arguing a POV and OR comment has sufficient rareness to merit a wow, SqueakBox 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV outdent 2

OK, I'm gonna skip over the stuff immediately above my post and reply directly to Vintagekitses reply to my first point. I'm putting it at the end here so that it isn't missed by anyone. I really don't care how long people have been arguing or who didn't listen to who, at the end of the day the onus is on Vintagekits to provide a source which shows that the term Malvinas War is as widely used as Falklands War. If you can prove this (and if the UN really use the term officially) then show us in the article with a properly formatted link to it. If you can't then leave it in the "Names" section where it was before and stop pressing for its equal recognition. It must be a reliable source which indiciates that the term Malvinas War is as widely used as Falklands War. This DOES NOT include sources which use "Falklands/Malvinas War" (which is the term I believe the UN actually use) but only sources specifically explaining the use of the term Malvinas War. The name "Falklands/Malvinas War" could perhaps stay in the article lead as an alternate, but only if it is sourced as an official name, preferably with a link to the UN, and an explanation of who uses it (perhaps in a footnote). Wikipedia is not interested in assertions without verification.--Jackyd101 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I gott ago to bed cos I got work in the morning but heres a start for you for starters Argentinian press release in English, and here for left wing report on the war, here for a report on the islands and the all important United Nations that you asked for would be a good start, the non political Ocean Currents Project, this neutral ABC website, this British book by Martin Middlebrook, this Irish website, the landmines monitor. Like I said I can add more to this later as I gotta go ta bed.--Vintagekits 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Time is not really an issue here, so don't worry about not continuing this tonight, I have work tomorrow too. I'm looking at your sources one by one and I'll comment on them.
  • Argentinian press release in English - name says it all, not useful for proving use of the term Malvinas War in standard English.
  • left wing report on the war - The same piece in the article currently. Is just about enough to prove that the term is used by fringe groups, i.e. not good enough for the lead.
  • a report on the islands - The term Malvinas is only used to describe Argentinian plans or reactions, Falklands and Falklands/Malvinas are also used throughout.
  • the all important United Nations that you asked for - Does not mention the war and gives the official name as "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", which actually appears to weigh against your case.
  • Ocean Currents Project - Is not about the war or the islands, but about an ocean current.
  • this neutral ABC website - Is entitled "The Malvinas-Falklands War" and in the lead talks about the "invasion of the Falkland Islands". Given that the guests include both Argentinian and British academics this would seem to point to the Spanish use of the term.
  • this British book by Martin Middlebrook - An Amazon page for a book of unknown content written about the Argentinian side of the war.
  • this Irish website - An Irish Republican blog, perhaps good enough again to show a fringe view, not good enough for the importance you attach to the term.
  • the landmines monitor - entitled "FALKLANDS/MALVINAS", no use of term Malvinas War and Malvinas only used alone in quotes from Argentinian politicians.
Two of these sources may be enough to indicate fringe use of the term, but the others only use it in a Falklands/Malvinas context or when representing an Argentinian viewpoint. The only new source to use the specific term "Malvinas War" was the Irish Republican blog, which is not good enough for these purposes. Several of the sources have nothing to do with the war, and one only tengentially connects with the islands at all. If you can come up with some more later then by all means submit them, but these are not enough on their own.--Jackyd101 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
An Argentine statement translated into English? If that's the best you can do you are destroying your own case, SqueakBox 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
To be honest you opinion means little to me Sqeauk, I will wait until others judge it. Surprising that you love documents and honours from the British goverment but disparage Argentinian goverment documents! Also its very strange that User:Swuekilafe turns up only when you are up to your level on WP:3RR - very unusual!--Vintagekits 00:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Swuekilafe? Where is he? I havent seen him since this dispute last erupted, and he hasnt edited since the third. Whether my opinion means little or a lot to you doeasnt make the slightest difference as this is wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
None of these provides the key reference we are looking for here which is as Jackyd101 said a reputable statement that the war is commonly called the Malvinas War, in English. No-one is disputing that formulations like "Falklands/Malvinas War" are sometimes used, what we would need to be able to adopt your proposal would be a reliable source saying that both are used equally often, in English. Vintagekits, I hope you slept well. It might be better not to personalise these disputes this way when you return. Best wishes, --Guinnog 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
My surprise at your using an Argentinian source, Vintage, is that I am under no illusions about how the great majority of Argentinians feel about this but that is a Spanish speaking country, SqueakBox 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Spanish speaking country yes, but the document is in English. Anyway the Embassy press release is not the only source I outlined above.--Vintagekits 12:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
None of these sources support the edit you are proposing. --Guinnog 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Google

As a yardstick, note that Google finds "about 650,000 for "Falklands War"", but only "about 58,200 for "Malvinas War""; and the latter total includes "about 41,000 for "Falklands/Malvinas War"" - so the true figure is more like 691,000:58,200, or approx. 12:1 Andy Mabbett 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I got "1,150,000 for "Falklands War" and "1,340,000 for "Guerra de Malvinas" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.60.211 (talk • contribs)
Which proves nothing as Google trawls in all languages and nobody is claiming that in the world Falklands War is more common than Guerra de Las Malvinas, SqueakBox 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The use of Guerra de Malvinas doesn't appear to be in dispute, its the use of Malvinas War not as a translation of Guerra de Malvinas but as an English word from English sources, or something. (And just for the record, when doing a quick jokey search, I got over 230,000 hits for 'Aliens killed JFK'. I really hate google searches as a mesure of things) Narson 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's view

Outsider's view: As a neutral party, may I comment? The lead had been quite stable for quite some time (I carefully reviewed the history), until Vintagekits changed it (with bad grammar and all) and then reverted any attempt to change it back. Something this sensitive should have been proposed here before changing it. In the interest of keeping this civil, I suggest that the lead get put back to the stable version before Vintagekits' edit, until a consensus can be reached to change it. In fact, I'm gonna be bold and go do this, not because I endorse one view or the other, but because I endorse stability in the encyclopedia, and I would ask that all parties in this dispute respect the concept of "discuss first" with such sensitive subjects. Stability and consensus is vital to this project, and while change is good, change should come after discussion. This isn't worth an all-out edit war. Work together folks. AKRadecki 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if you look here and in the two threads below that that I have been trying to discuss this issue for nearly five month. The problem on English language wiki is that porportionally in has a larger number of British editors editing this article than anyone else and they have been stonewalling this issue.--Vintagekits 10:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Article name

I believe that the title of hte article should be the Falklands war/Malvinas War. Reuters News service alternated between both names during the conflict. While I think that British and Argentinian people my call the war one name or the other, for the purposes of this unbias encyclopedia both names should be used to preserve neutrality. Wikipedia is not here to say that the island is rightfully british or argentinian, its job is to provide information. If both names aren't used then it adds weight to one position and not the other. If that is allowed then we are doing ourselves and wikipedia a diservice.Maplecelt 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral person's comment for the purpose of spurring discussion: While it is obvious that the British call the island "Falklands" and the Argentines (Argentinians? sorry if I misspeak here) call them "Malvinas". The more important question, though is what does the rest of the English-speaking world call them? This is, after all, the English-language Wikipedia. So, fans of maps and atlases, especially you with older editions: Was Malvinas a generic, universally-accepted alternative, or is it a name used mainly (or uniquely?) in Argentina? This is important, because we have some similar precendents already set for how we address issues in articles. AKRadecki 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Maplecelt, and have made the point already. If as AKRadecki suggests that the article be reverted and discussed first, then the tag should stay during discussion. On a personal point I am not intrested in what the rest of the "English-speaking world call them",the English speaking world should not dictate or determine our understanding of , or opinions on, our view of things. Parity of esteem, it what is being asked for, and being resisted. What we aim for is neutrality, and because this is the English version of Wikipedia, we must respect the views of non-English speaking Editors. What did the Argentinians call the war? If they called it the Malvinas War, then in the interest of balance, it should be included.--Domer48 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to change the Article name, I suggest you use the normal method to ascertain consensus. And read Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) first. And one of the first statements of Naming is "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." GraemeLeggett 10:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well lets get the lead section to acknowledge the fact that it is also reffered to as Malvinas and then we can talk about a name change if that is then needed (I am not sure it is). What is true is that the current version is unacceptable and not NPOV.--Vintagekits 11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits, I'm not sure I get your point...the lead section does acknowlege the fact that the islands are referred to as "Malvinas". Currently, "Malvinas" is the eighth word in the lead paragraph. Is that not good enough? Is it the fact that it's italicized that bothers you? Let me give you an example of where I was going. Besides the point that GraemeLeggett makes about our naming conventions, when an article is about an American subject, U.S. English is used, when the article is about a British subject, British English is used. The point is that we conform some of the language to the subject. These islands were a British colony before Argentina existed as a nation, and before the nation before Argentina existed. They are still British. That's a reality, it's not a political bias. They were named by the first explorer to set foot on them, who happened to be British. This is a historic reality. The predominant maps of the world use the term "Falklands". Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people with political agendas to make their mark in the world. You (Domer48) may not be interested in what the rest of the English-speaking world calls them, but the reality is that this is the English-speaking Wikipedia. No one here is dictating your understanding of things, or your view of things. What we are asking is that you respect the policies and guideleines. AKRadecki 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes but is only acknowledges that it is referred to as the Malvians in the Spanish Language - but it does not acknowledge that it is referred to as the Malvinas War in the English aswell. --Vintagekits 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If you think that the purpose of Wikipedia is to "acknowledge" something, then you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not an advocacy forum. AKRadecki 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply to GraemeLeggett, if there is a preference only for what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, this would not be in any way neutral. This would also explaine why some English Editors are not familiar with the term. Which I find strange, since during the course of the war, a number of English Papers used the term Malvinas, though this was just to wind up the Tories I will admit. This would be an ideal opportunity to end the perpetuation of this information deficit , and learn that there is a whole wealth of information out there in the non-English speaking world that we should all be conscious of. --Domer48 15:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on POV neutrality, and article titles must be neutral as well, but this conflicts with the guideline about the preferred use of English. I'd rather have a short title ("making linking to those articles easy and second nature") than a clumsy compromise title (nobody says "Malvinas/Falklands", it's either one or the other). As long as Malvinas War redirects here, I think it's OK to leave the title at Falklands War. Domer48, note that Wikipedia is not an advocacy site or a source of new information; it only collects information from already published sources. This is definitely not the place "to end the perpetuation of this information deficit". —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Pable, we are not trying to reinvent the wheel here, however we must (I am struggling to carry on the wheel analogy now) reflect what type of wheel already exists.--Vintagekits 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at clarification

OK, it looks to me like there are three different arguments going on at the same time here. These need to be seperated before any solutions can be reached.

  • 1) The name of the islands themselves.
  • 2) The name of the war
  • 3) What alternative names of the war are acceptable and what prominence should they be given in the article.

Some points which have emerged from the discussion.

  • The first question should be discussed at Falkland Islands, not here. The discussion of the islands' name and the war's name are related but seperate questions which should not be confused.
  • This is the English-language Wikipedia, and thus the most common term in English is the one which this article should present as title and lead.
  • The most common name for the conflict in English is Falklands War. This includes English speaking populations in Britain, United States, Australia and elsewhere. Unsourced claims have been made that it is not the most common name in Ireland.
  • The most common name for the conflict in Spanish is Guerra de las Malvinas.
  • There is a case that Falklands/Malvinas War is a secondary name widely used in diplomatic language.
  • There is a case that Falklands Crisis/Conflict is a well used secondary name.
  • So far, no real evidence has been provided that Malvinas War is a common term in any English speaking place, only that it is used by minor fringe groups.
  • Guerra del Atlántico Sur may be a common Spanish term, it is used on the Spanish Wikipedia, but the question remains over whether it is common enough for the lead of the English article.
  • Guerra de las Falklands may be a fringe term in Spanish, possibly in Chile, but this too is unsourced.

The decision remains, where and in how much detail are the above choices presented. Here are some further points.

  • Vintagekits clearly desires that Malvinas War be in the lead, other users have resisted this. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that challenged statements MUST be reliably sourced. Since this claim has been challenged, Vintagekits must reliably source his assertion that Malvinas War is a common English term.
  • As for the other terms, there is a resonable case that all (including Malvinas War) can be presented in context with sources in the "Names" section at the bottom of the page. There is also an agreed case that the most common Spanish name can follow the English in the lead.
  • There also seem to be reliable enough sources that Falklands Crisis/Conflict and Falklands/Malvinas War could perhps be presented unbolded further down the lead as alternative names as well as in the names section.
  • Acceptable and reliable sources must be found to back up all the assertions made over names. These incude major international and national newservices, bodies, organisations and governments. Only sources in English are acceptable, as translations from Spanish do not prove anything except that Spanish speaking countries use Malvinas, which we already know. Sources from the British government or major British newspapers etc. should be labelled as such to make it clear that they come from one side of the dispute. Sources from other English speaking countries are probably the most useful.

What do people think to this summary and does anybody have any constructive comments about where to proceed? Regards--Jackyd101 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have summed it up admirably, Jackyd101. --Guinnog 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with some of it but disagree with others. You seem to be picking and choosing how we look at evidence and what evidence is acceptable and how the information should be presented.--Vintagekits 19:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify what you believe I have picked and chosen? What do you agree with or disagree with?--Jackyd101 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I, too, think that you have done a masterful job in clarifying things. AKRadecki 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yours was a very good summation, Jackyd101. The sources as yet identified do not support the contention that "Malvinas War" is a term used in English to the degree necessary to merit inclusion in the lead. I would welcome its inclusion there if the sources can be found. Mmccalpin 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
A masterful summary, I think. SheffieldSteel 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, when it comes to sources, I dug into the media coverage of the Versailles summit, inwhich all the western leaders were in attendance. The conflict in the Falklands, among others, was discussed. In the coverage of this aspect of the summit, "Falklands crisis" and "Falklands conflict" are the terms primarily used. "Malvinas" isn't at all as far as I can see. A couple refs: Mitterrand's statement at the conclusion of the summit; Time magazine coverage. There are others, as well. My point is that the leaders in the western world, not just the English-speaking world, at the time, discussed this as "Falklands", not "Malvinas" as the English-language name for the conflict. AKRadecki 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to note, in the original French, Mitterrand uses the word "Falklands" in reference to the war, and "Îles Malouines" in reference to the islands. You can see that here. So the translation into English, in reference to the war, is quite clear. (The standard French name for the war, incidentally is "(la) guerre des Malouines", reflecting the standard French name for the islands).
Incidentally, I think Jackyd101's clarification is accurate and well done. Pfainuk 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the source given, and I do have to agree it doesn't back up the statement that the British Left call it Malvinas (Even in any large number). Infact, looking at some other articles from this 'Proletarian Revolution/Socialist Voice' (Is this really a reliable source?) it even acknowledges several left leaning groups calling them falklands and falklanders, including Tony Benn's group within labour as well as the Socialist Workers Party and Spartacist League of Britain. I am sure Vingekits will have a better (And British) source so I will leave it to him to alter the source for a better one. Narson 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That might be a reliable source, but only for what that particular group says - at least, if I understand WP:RS correctly. More importantly, that source seems somewhat shy of wikipedia's notability threshold. SheffieldSteel 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I must admit I've never heard of them, but my father's cousin might have an idea. Her mother was a pretty staunch and active member of the British communist groups, as was that entire side of the family. But yeah, that definatly appears to be an American source (And even they use Malvinas (Falklands) in their opening paragraph :) ) Narson 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
From Der Spiegel. I will put forward a more comprehensive argument soon (time constraints you know!) but here is a strong piece of evidence which show a very main stream non British or Argentinian source referring to the islands as the Malvinas and the war as the Malvinas War.--Vintagekits 23:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. What point were you trying to make by citing this?
I mean, it's hardly surprising that an article about "ARGENTINA'S FALKLANDS WAR VETERANS" is going to use their terminology. But the topic is introduced as the Falklands War.SheffieldSteel 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How many cargo ships?

There have been numerous (reverted) attempts to change the figures in the "Casualties" portion of the infobox - specifically, the number of Argentinian cargo ships sunk. One would think that such a simple question should be easy to answer definitively, once and for all. With that aim in mind, I invite those editors who feel strongly on this issue, rather than engaging in edit war, to please state your cases here, preferrably citing reliable sources. SheffieldSteel 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no edit war; some people dislike Wikipedia because they think it's unreliable. Therefore they are testing it by making minuscule editions, to see how long time the false informations will last. A person from Virginia, USA, with a floating IP-adress beginning with: "71.1xx.xxx.xxx" began his numerous test 8th of May by changing 75 fixed wing aircraft to 74, without Edit summary, references, talk contribution etc. Different users corrected it, in the beginning with explanations in the edit summary window, but later treated it as vandalism. There is no dialog and now "71.1xx.xxx.xxx" has changed his attention to cargo ships.
The civilian coaster Río Carcarañá sunk 23rd of May 1982 — ARA Bahía Buen Suceso was attacked by Sea Harriers 16th of May and damaged beyond repair — ARA Isla de los Estados sunk after being shelled by HMS Alacrity 10th of May.
Antony Preston: Sea Combat off the Falklands, 1982, Willow Books, ISBN 0-00218046-4 (Bahia Buen Suceso, Isla de Estados[Sic] & Rio Caracan[Sic])
Osprey Combat Aircraft #28: Air War in the Falklands 1982, 2001, Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1-84176-293-8 (Bahia Buen Suceso & Rio Carcarona[Sic])
Sir Lawrence Freedman: The official History of the Falklands Campaign - vol. II, 2005, Routledge, ISBN 0-7146-5207-5 (Isla de los Estados & Rio Carcarana)
Casualties are also spoils of war: the civilian tanker Yehuin was captured after the armistice and renamed Falkland Sound
http://www.naval-history.net/F60surrender.htm Small oil rig tender Yehuin (renamed Falkland Sound)
http://ddghansa-shipsphotos.de/millerntor100.htm (in German) "Nach dem Ende des Falkland-Konfliktes am 14.06.1982 durch Großbritannien beschlagnahmt." - Confiscated by UK at the end of the Falklands War, 14th June 1982.
So the number of Argentina's lost cargo ships are neither 2 nor 3 but four. Necessary Evil 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How can you consider a 494 ton boat a cargo ship?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.53.211 (talk • contribs)
It can speak!!
Hmmm, one ship is a boat, so you change 4 to 2! Necessary Evil 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Great Naming Debate

Every two or three months the great "this article should be called the..." debate arises, and everytime it is settled with the same elaborate arguements. It is getting rediculously repetititve and time consuming to go through all of these arguements, Such as the islanders choice, the victor naming the islands, the original naming of the islands, who had them first and so forth. Inevitably it becomes a sort of 'who should control the islands' proxy debate, which itself gets some people very aggitated as although the British decisively won the war, the issue of ownership remains unsettled in the opinion of the Argentines.

However, As far as I can see there is no problem calling this article the Falklands War. This is for one main reason that the Falkland Islands are the correct English name for the islands. Malvinas is the argentine/spanish name for the islands. US news agencies like Reuters only called the islands Malvinas/Falklands during the war (and to a degree afterwards) to accomodate the high number of spanish speaking people in north america. In Europe (with the obvious exception of spain) they were not so named.

As a case study of this policy, if you type "deutschland" into the search bar it redirects you to germany. Thats because germany is the english name for country and this is the english wikipedia. en.wikipedia isn't a multilingual encylopedia but does accomodate commonly known non-english words. The very fact a malvinas redirect exists in this case is generous for normal policy. I see no reason why this should be furhter extended to rename the article to Falklands/Malvinas as malvinas is not the english name for the islands and this is afterall the en. version of wikipedia. You dont see the title of 'germany' as 'Germany/deutschland'. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 14:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As you already said , I will explain again like previous months, why there is not a Germany/deutschland so called article. It because there is not a claim or dispute there!!. The islands are referred as Falklands Islands (Malvinas) by the UN and the ISO standard not just Falklands nor Malvinas. Now is your time to came again and say : "The people there want to be called Falklands", "UK won the war", and so on .- Jor70 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone had raised a problem with this being called the Falkland War for a while? *looks at Jor70* Until you brought it up anyway :) Narson 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not begin this again, he asked why there is not a Germany/deutschland article. Jor70 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant until he brought it up (At which point you chimed in) Narson 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Jor70 point is valid, and has not been addressed. --Domer48 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent)So, the argument seems to boil down to this

  • Malvinas is the Spanish name
  • Falklands is the English name
  • Spanish speakers want to use the Spanish name
  • English speakers mainly want to use the English name
  • Some English speakers (including, but not limited to, Irish republicans and some socialists) want to use the Spanish name
  • Diplomats, international agencies, and news media may use one or both names, depending on native tongue and on audience

Did I miss anything? SheffieldSteel 15:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be it. Frankly I think the naming of the war is less controversial than the islands. The common name is Falkland War in the English language. Its not like there is some neutral source we can go to on matters on the naming of colonies/dependencies/overseas territory/Whatever we are calling them these days. So we go with what is the common name. Narson 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
All that some Editors want is for the title to be balanced, and for each name to be given parity of esteem. Or in wiki talk equal weight. --Domer48 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Boiled nicely. It seems that the solution is right in front of us: Call it the English name in the English wikipedia, the Spanish name in the Spanish wikipedia, and have a redirect from Malvinas War to Falklands war in the En WP so that the odd diplomat, int'l agency worker, Irish Republican or news reporter who stops by can find his way easily...oh, wait, that's how it is now. So what's the fuss all about? Think about how much time is being wasted on this debate, time that could be used for truly constructive editing? If you really are hung up with using Spanish names for things, consider going and editing on the Spanish wikipedia. With their 237,000 articles to our 1.8 million, they could actually use your talents a lot more over there. As for "parity of esteem", it's not the place of Wikipedia to make people feel good about the name their own spanish-speaking county calls a particular war. AKRadecki 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Had a look for "equal weight" - couldn't find it. Theres WP:UNDUE weight, but I'm not sure that's what you want. SheffieldSteel 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SheffieldSteel WP:UNDUE weight will do just fine. There is an obvious name dispute in relation to this article, and the title doses not reflect that. Therefore undue weight is being giving to one term. AKRadecki Good manners and politeness is applicable and appreciated in any language. --Domer48 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no major name dispute in English though. The naming of articles is by common name in English, it would appear. For example, I doubt Boston Massacre is the most NPOV term. Yet could you imagine calling it 'Riot in Kings Street' or 'Civil disturbance in Boston'? Alternative names are given in the lead section. This is perfectly fine (infact, we even give the spanish alternative before we give the first British one). Narson 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to throw around guidelines like WP:UNDUE in comments, but have you actually read it? What it actually says about minority views is "should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Now compare usage: "Falklands War" is used by the vast majority of the English-speaking world. "Malvinas War", in English is used by...who? It is clearly a minority view, and WP:UNDUE, when properly applied here, does not require "Malvians War" to be given parity. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I really don't think WP:UNDUE was what Domer48 wanted. Bearing those guidelines in mind, let's look at how our Spanish-speaking colleagues interpreted them:-
(This is easy to find: just change the URL from en.wikipedia to es.wikipedia and Falklands_War will redirect you to the correct article.) My point is, the current English version is already more favourable to the Spanish name than the Spanish version is to the English name. Now I'm not claiming that this is a conclusive argument, but it seems to me that, given the interpretation those editors have given to the NPOV rules regarding naming the conflict, and taking into account the minority English-speaking usage of Malvinas, the English version is pretty nearly exactly right. Perhaps it gives the Spanish term a little too much weight, since it really is a small minority, but that's okay. I think we can afford to give the benefit of the doubt here. What we absolutely should not do, in my opinion, is give any more weight to the Spanish name than we currently do. SheffieldSteel 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The english version more favourable ?!? Are you kidding, the english WP shows the spanish name in italics, under () and as translation while the spanish WP shows Falklands War in boldt and in the same level than the spanish names.- Jor70 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It is in italics, because that is how it is proper to write foreign words in English text (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)). I would not, however, object to the spanish names also being bolded. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Im not against the WP style, just sounds me not nice SheffieldSteel comment --Jor70 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)



I just fail to see how one of the parties in a conflict, can be considered to be a minority view in relation to the war and how it is named. The issue in relation to the islands, as far as I’m aware, is still unresolved. By insisting on using only one term in the title, we are lending undue weight to one of the conflicting parties. In affect, we are pre-determining any established outcome. --Domer48 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about giving both sides in the war equal time on Wikipedia. But even if it were, you're argument doesn't hold water: One side, the English, called it "Falklands War", the other side, the Argentines, called it "La Guerra de las Malvinas" or "Guerra del Atlántico Sur", and as it was pointed out already, the Argentinian name is already given precedence in the lead over the alternate English name. What is a minority view is the usage, in English, of the title "Malvinas War". That's the point here. We're not refighting the war, and both sides, in their native languages, are more than adequately represented in the lead. The title, because this is the English Wikipedia, is the English usage. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
When I used the term "minority" in my post above, I was referring to the minority of English-speakers who use the Spanish name. Sorry I wasn't more clear. SheffieldSteel 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No Problem, SheffieldSteel,Regards --Domer48 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems crystal clear to me. 99.99% of references to this conflict in english will call it the "Falklands War". --RaiderAspect 11:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not Port Stanley?

Although some people persist in calling it "Port Stanley", this is not and was not the official name of the town before or after the war (discounting the numerous names that the Argentines gave it). "Stanley" without the "Port" prefix was established long before the war, and on 2 August 1956, the Officer Administering the Government of the Falkland Islands reported to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London as follows:

There is some difficulty over the correct name of the capital. Early despatches contain reference to both Port Stanley and Stanley. Port Stanley was accepted by the Naming Commission set up in 1943 to consider the names then being included on the War Office maps. Local opinion differs on the matter, but there is no doubt that Stanley is now common usage and has been for some considerable time. The capital is defined as Stanley in the Interpretation and General Law Ordinance. In the circumstances I would advise that the correct name for the capital is Stanley.[9]

It was not officially Port Stanley in 1982, is not Port Stanley in 2007, and was plain Stanley during the 1960s, 1970s, most of the 1980s, 1990s and present day.

This is nitpicking, I know, but it is a point of accuracy. --MacRusgail 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps the UK media used the term "Port Stanley" too much at the time, which let to its prominent place in popular culture. Sources such as that quoted above would not be necessary otherwise. The only question is how best to cover this "popular misconception" in the article. SheffieldSteel 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on Reference

Just a question, what was wrong with the reference used by Jor70 the explanation given by WikipedianProlific here, [10] in the summary is I consider strange, is it a policy thing of what? Could someone explaine to me why it is not considered to be a RS. Honest Question. Regards --Domer48 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned above (In the section about the whole thing). Though I think a fact tag while Vintagekit dredges up some more refs would have been better than the removal. As for why its not suitable, an American source that refers to it in Malvinas (Falkland) order as well as then proceeding to mention the left in Britain and then when referencing the left, using Falkland. As for a lack of notability.....it does seem a little bit of an odd source regardless, being from a group called the Proletarian Revolution from their newsletter 'Socialist Voice' (Doesn't appear to be the more famous Socialist Voice from the canadian communists whose name I forget) Narson 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason I asked is when I checked out the reference I came up with this [11], it would appear that it has been around some time. Regards --Domer48 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahh yes. Turns out the group is League for the Revolutionary Party and the newsletter is Prolotarian Revolution with Socialist Voice as a subtitle or somesuch. It seems to be what we might politely call 'fringe' and does seem to be American. It can speak as to American leftist views (And pretty far left, as the group seems to spend half its time bashing other leftists) not sure it can speak as to the British (as it was being used for I believe)? Narson 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it says it's reprinted from an earlier UK publication and from the tone of the writing I can believe that. It's a borderline notability case. I edited the article to put this in the correct context. Odd that the last word in the article should go to groups who felt that British socialists had a duty to campaign for an Argentinian victory. But it's a funny world :-/ SheffieldSteel 19:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) The edit summary by WikipedianProlific is wrong and a little hysterical. The real problem with the source is that whilst it shows that "somebody" uses the term it gives absolutely no indication that anyone of interest or authority does so. Thus it can only be used to source the assertion that fringe groups say Malvinas War. Its nationality is unimportant, but its reliabilty is suspect because a reader has absolutely no knowledge of the relevance of the organisation which uses it. If it was CNN, BBC or any other reliable news or political organisation we'd be able to contextualise the reference, but this odd group are unknown and we have no way of knowing how respectable their opinion is.--Jackyd101 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Its nationality was relevent as it was being used to specifically reference British left wing mentioning Malvinas. As a reply to sheffieldsteel, the use of Malvinas is not within quotes so we can't be sure if that was original wording. The quotes from left or left leaning groups within the UK that I found on that site is: http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/MalvinasSV17.html
Its an interesting read as an article if you have the time. Narson 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point about nationality, I missed that, sorry.--Jackyd101 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think when removing the reference that there'd be an essay of comments about it the following day, but this is after all a heavily patrolled article. Most of my reasoning has already been identified above by others but I just thought I'd jump in and clarify. It is indeed because the article is very much on the borderline for WP:noteability and its origins don't justify it to qualify the statement it follows. And just because someone called the islands malvinas doesnt qualify the statement that "The british left often refer to the islands as the malvinas". Just because someone said it, doesn't mean everyone says it. And its a pretty broad sterotype to say "the british left often..." as its such a diverse group with many different opinions, and as someone identified above, the british left are so diverse they often spend more time arguing with other leftists. Indeed at the time of the conflict the UK (left right and center) was (amazingly) largely in agreement (something quite uncommon in the UK) that the islands sovereignty was not under question, and that the invasion had been just that, not an argentine liberation. Even those who felt the argentines may have a case made clear that they deplored the way in which they had gone about it. The main disagreements between the left and center/right were really more over the correct course of action to take. As one can imagine, the majority of the left advocated a more peaceful solution. I removed the comment as its one of those risky little things an editor slips in, which then become very hard to remove, not because its right, but because it can't be proven wrong and a minority feel strongly over it, but I think if we're objective we can see that the statement and reference really aren't encylopedic. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 09:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the British centre-left I have to say that I have never heard or seen the Falklands referred to as the Malvinas. That isn't to say that some might, but I've never heard it. Darkmind1970 09:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It Is perhaps worth mentioning that at the time a large section of the left saw the Falklands War as standing up to a fascistic military regime: the most rousing pro-war speech in the House of Commons debate famously came from Michael Foot. MAG1 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay so the comment has now been edited again (rightly so I think) to point out the socialist group were revolutionary not just a run of the mill left wing party. Seriously, lets just delete the damn comment, now its about as relevant as saying "My grandma called the islands malvinas once". The point it was trying to make has already been established as flawed thinking anyway. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, not quite 'edited'. I simply undid some edits that managed to sneak in under the radar to make the claim 'wider' without providing additional sources. I like to see the British anti-war thing as I think it is a view worth having on there, sadly though its a question of sources. People just havn't found the sources to back up this malvinas claim. Really. Re-reading that source, it does use quotation marks in places, but not around Malvinas, which means we cannot be sure the British resource (The Economist) called it the Malvinas. I mean, the source is already being stretched to provide this minor sentence, so you may be right WikipedianProlific. Feel free to 'Be Bold', as they always say. Just expect there to be a large amount of debate, as most deletion and addition gets on these pages ;) Narson 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Falklands veterans' afflictions

The following material does not fit under the section it was added to. If anyone wants to put it somewhere else, go ahead. SheffieldSteel 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher was quoted as saying "in the struggle against evil... we can all today draw hope and strength" from the Falklands victory.[2] while current Argentinian President Nestor Kirchner claimed that the UK won a colonial victory and vowed that the islands would return to Argentine soveriegnty again[3].

Prisoners

11,313 taken prisoner? Is that true. Can someone explain this fact cos I dont beleive it can be true. Also there is not mention of this in the main article. --PrincessBrat 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

All argentine forces on the islands surrendered, this means they are taken prisoner. AT least thats how I assume the figure is arrived at. Narson 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true, they were all taken to boats heading to Argentina, where they were released after the British kept every photo, flag and of course rifles and ammo. 190.49.165.135 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectful

Today there was an interview [12] on La Nacion to swiss Martin Fuhrer, a Red Cross observer at the islands during the War. I would like to add his thoughts and I would be grateful of better english help : when he is asked what differentiate the Falklands War to other conflicts he not doubt: the respect to the victims and the rules of the war. He still remembers a British helicopter that deposited him in the Argentine hospital ship Almirante Irizar was useful to interchange medecines with the "enemy", because there were no sides for the wounded. [4]

  1. ^ http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html
  2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6748125.stm
  3. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6755039.stm
  4. ^ cuando se le pregunta qué identificó a la Guerra de las Malvinas de la treintena de conflictos armados que presenciaría después, no lo duda: el respeto a las víctimas y a las reglas de la guerra. Todavía se acuerda de que el helicóptero británico que lo depositó en el buque hospital argentino Almirante Irizar aprovechó para intercambiar medicamentos con "el enemigo", porque no había bandos para los heridos.

Recent jor70 edits.

The recent spate of User:Jor70 edits, particularly to the sections regarding the air campaign are heavily weasle worded in my opinion. Analysis of this users recent edits show a history of distrust and aggression toward the UK and specifically towards England. On the 25th anniversary of the falklands war for example, jor70's userpage was edited to provide a sarcastically worded anti-british message. The articles he edits seem to be very much one track anglo-argentine disputes. For example he abundantly edits the argentine english football rivalry article, itself a somewhat dubious collection of nationalistic wording (though by no means the direct fault of Jor70 but by both english and argentine nationalistic editors).

Other edits to this article are not so much blatent POV but rather more subtle weasel wording. Generally this wording is aimed at reducing the the British victory to little more than luck. An objective editor can see that this is not the case with the Falklands war. For example recent edits to the aircraft section overly amplify (for no good alternate reason) the argentine lack of adequate air-to-air defenses. It is put forward in such a manner that although it is technically correct, it weasel words the idea across to the reader that the british only had the upper hand in the air campaign due to superior technology and hardware. An objective editor can see that its impossible to say for sure why they had the upper hand, it may simply have been luck, better training, weather, superior position over the islands (indeed arengtine pilots had a small attack window before needing to return to the mainland) or any number of other reasons. Jor70's edits are generally accurate, but they seem to enforce a pro-argentine POV all be it subtle. For example, they recently persistantly reverted a number of my edits to remove an erroneous comment that the british left wing often refer to the islands as malvinas. On the one hand his edits enforce the solidarity of the argentine claim, while on the other hand his edits reduce the consistancy of the british claim. The comment was then referenced using an obscurce (certainly not noteability) american source. It seems to be another example of subtle weasel wording on a larger scale across the article.

I hope I am reading more into these edits than is perhaps behind them, and want to point out that I am maintaining good faith on jor70s behald. However, I advise caution to jor70 when making edits to ensure that they are not from a nationalistic or personal POV. I equally advise other editors of this article to remain vigilant against such edits. Just because something isn't technically wrong doesn't mean its inclusion in the article is correct. In an article this large we must carefully consider what is relevant and what isn't.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well this is fantastic, being the only Argentine editor posting in this article for a while, I need to be watched!, how this is not a personal attack ? Is vandalizing my user page not enough ? First, I do not remember writing/editing/rv about any british left wing issue here or whatever second I have over 3000 edits mostly in Argentina or football related articles (e.g. the argentina-english and argentina-brazil football rivalries are two of the most entertained) and third you should read a version of this article one year half ago before I find it and how balanced was. Jor70 12:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
And I forgot to mention, regarding yours my so called antiengland distrust you can check my controbutions at English settlement in Argentina and No. 164 Squadron RAF.-- Jor70 11:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
And being asked about writting on left issues today I received this [13] .- Jor70 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
United Kingdom is about to loose the war in Iraq, therefore the media etc. is turning their attention to the Falklands War, which was won against uniformed soldiers in a conventional war. Off course Britain should be allowed to celebrate her victory, but some British journalists, who until recently didn't really knew about the Falklands War, are delivering false information from 1982 or embellishing the stories to create more heroes.
It is always sound to hear both sides and User:Jor70 is presenting the Argentine view, often neglected by the majority of editors. There is a tendency that Argentine views are being demanded references, while British views are not. It most be tiring to read the same 80's propaganda inserted again and again (Sea Skua destroyed all those vessels, Sea Harrier shot down Mach 2 fighters, Black Buck resulted in redeploying the Argentine Mirages to Buenos Aires etc.). To a Briton in these days, Jor70's contribution might sound like a sore loser's, but this article is for the English-reading inhabitants of the Earth, The Sun is for British nationalistic articles.
I have not read Jor70's football editions but isolated my view to Falklands War-articles and his 25-anniversary userpage was changed by Harry of the Yellow Banana. Jor70 is more or less the only Argentine contributor to this article, against 20-30 British editors. Downgrading the British victory is not automatically Argentina nationalistic or personal POV. P.S. I'm a Dane. Necessary Evil 12:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Jor70 might sometimes phrase things unencyclopedically (<-take that), but his contributions are never bad intentioned, and try to present the Argentine view of the conflict, something that the rest of the editors fail to do. It seams imperative trying to keep a balance, specially when you hear old Tacher still politically using that victory in a most reputable way. I miyself would like to know (and perhaps also care) a little bit more about the conflict in order to contribute, but I don't have neither the knowledge nor the time. --Mariano(t/c) 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Everyone needs to be watched, and everyone needs to be careful about what they themselves write. I'd hate to see a good faith editor driven away because they feel they're being attacked. SheffieldSteel 17:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Jor70 is a good ediotr and far better than some who should know better. Keep up the good work, SqueakBox 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across this interesting bit of classified information that came out in 2005 that throws a very different light on the subject

“A Royal Navy task force was sent to the Falkland Islands to defend them from Argentine attack five years before the war there, archive papers have shown. The flotilla led by nuclear-powered submarine HMS Dreadnaught was thought to have deterred a 1977 invasion. James Callaghan's government secretly ordered Operation Journeyman after 50 Argentine "scientists" landed on South Thule, prompting fears of an attack. The details have been disclosed for the first time by the National Archives. The Argentines eventually invaded the Falklands five years later in 1982. Lord Owen, who was foreign secretary in 1977, said that if Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government had taken similar action to that of five years earlier, the war would not have happened. The papers show Lord Owen insisted the 1977 mission was conducted in intense secrecy. Even the crews did not know where they were going. “

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm

69.72.92.194 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

>Not that Lord Owen would have been aprticularly impartial in this matter - an opportunity to rubbish Thatcher and the Conservatives would have been too good for him to miss.

Typical partisan comment considering these words from the Myth Maker herself:

“When asked in a conversation with Woodrow Wyatt on 18 December, 1988 whether she would have Owen in her government if approached by him, Margaret Thatcher replied: "Well, not straight away. I don't think I would do it straight away. He was very good on the Northern Ireland terrorist business. He's wasting his life now. It's so tragic. He's got real ability and it ought to be used".[1] In another conversation with Wyatt on 4 June, 1990 Thatcher said Owen's natural home was the Conservative Party.[2]”

Now the preceding sentence from above may well be understood:

“He maintained his long standing position that he would never join the Conservative Party, although the memoirs of at least three of John Major's cabinet ministers refer to Major being quite keen to appoint Owen to his cabinet, but threats of resignation from within the Cabinet prevented him from doing so.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Owen

I'm not sure this puts any light on it, I mean, wasn't the war partially caused by the cutting down of Falkland forces, causing the argentines to believe we were giving them permission to take the islands and we wouldn't cause a stink? So its no suprise if we had sent war ships around the islands, that the Argentines may not have invaded. Its also not a suprise the Argentinians had tried this stuff before, they openly state their intention to take the islands in their constitution. Narson 17:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

>I'm not sure this puts any light on it, I mean, wasn't the war partially caused by the cutting down of Falkland forces, causing the argentines to believe we were giving them permission to take the islands and we wouldn't cause a stink?

In light of this article, if Thatcher knew this had taken place in 1977 why would she lower the size of Falkland forces? Was it a deliberate ploy to encourage the junta’s worst inclinations? If Callaghan’s tactics had worked why then did Thatcher not use the secret deployment and threat tactic again, then this could have allowed the Argentineans to back out and save face.

>So its no suprise if we had sent war ships around the islands, that the Argentines may not have invaded.

Yes Callaghan proved this with the secret that has been released some 23 years later. But Thatcher made this a very public affair escalating tensions deliberately with Murdoch’s press and others in lock step.

>Its also not a suprise the Argentinians had tried this stuff before, they openly state their intention to take the islands in their constitution. Narson 17:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes they have a current complaint filed with the UN under their new constitution that was created after the junta was ousted. This has been a consistent policy through many different governments for more than a hundred years. Kirchner made this a priority during his campaign. 69.72.92.155 19:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Buck Raids

I have just removed and clarified a section of text added by NessessaryEvil regarding the effect of the black buck raids. Its difficult to say how effective they actually were as they may have made significant moral impacts on the argentine defenders of port stanley as well as influencing the decison to withdraw aircraft from teh islands back to the mainland. It is however not for us to decide so i recommend we avoid saying they were (or werent) effective and simply stick to saying "the effects of the raids were debatable."

One arguement that comes up alot to say they were a waste is the quantity of fuel they consumed, however, the aviation fuel did not come from the task forces' supply and would have come from teh RAFs mainland supply. Equally, aviation fuel was (and still is) readily available and so a shortage would have been unlikely. Put this way, flying the black buck raids did not prevent the sea harriers from patrolling at all and so the fuel arguement is a false logic. I think whats more debatable is were the effects worth the massive logistical planning and high potential for failure and loss of life to both the aircrew and civilians on the islands.

In a recent book (I can find the name if someone wants and probably a page aswell, but off the top of my head I can't remember it) there are a number of quotes from argentine conscripts who said the black buck raids effectively put the fear into them as they believed the British may embark on a long duration bombing campaign of stanley like they did to germany during WWII, until the argentines had no supplies and were cut of from the mainland due to the lack of air superiority (argentine aircraft were ineffective at night when most raids would take place) and the infrastructure damage that raids might cause. I don't doubt for a second that to be a poorly trained, ill equipt 18-20 year old conscript hearing bombs falling around you might cause you to lose a few nights sleep so ultimately whose to say how effective it was. It falls into much the same category as the bouncing bomb raids on the ruhr (sp?) valley and the dresden fire storm raids of WWII, all being hotly debated even now many years later. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


British writers states again and again that Argentina placed their best fighters around Buenos Aires, because of Operation Black Buck. The idea is plausible, but is there any reference for that, except the merry-go-round of authors copying each other?
The fuel problem was the limited tanker capacity of the Ascension Island. The British commander of the Ascension Island (from RN) was stunned to hear about the Black Buck plans. The limited room necessitating parking aeroplanes in Gibraltar! The Task Force wanted more Nimrod reconnaissance-sorties not high-profiled Vulcan-raids.
Regarding scaring Argentine conscripts; RN frigates and destroyers were shelling Port Stanley Airfield almost every night, so 21 explosions in three nights would be lost in the crowd.
Argentine Hercules cargoplanes flew supplies to Port Stanley to the last night before the end of the hostilities, so the runway was intact to the very end.
WWII: The Nazi-regime placed a lot of 88-mm guns around German cities, to shoot down Lancasters. Those guns where desperately needed on the East Front to destroy Soviet T-34 tanks. That is a tangible effect. Necessary Evil 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Reference to back up my second reversion, taken from the book "Vulcan 607" by Rowland White (published last arpil), in it he says "The aim of the mission was to place at least one bomb on the runway at Port Stanley. A textbook attack was carried out, laying 21 1,000lb bombs in a diagonal line across the width of the runway. One bomb hit the runway dead centre. Another blew a large crater in the edge of the runway and the rest missed the runway and made a mess of the surrounding area...destroying some ammunition and stores". I hope this clears up any confussion. A quick search of google also yeilds some interesting finds about Skarky Wards account of the raids suggesting it is slightly discrepant with others. It seems he felt that woodward lacked the experience to effectively utlise the combat air patrol properly and he seems to be quite genenerally disengaged nowadays, he also seems to have a massive chip on his shoulder about the whole thing. I expect his account is largely reliable but still, take it with a pinch of salt. Another reference, this time taken from "Falklands Aftermath", by Maj. Gen. Edward Fursdon backs up teh first source saying "During the campaign the runway had been sucessfully cratered by the Vulcan bomber and Harrier raids, and had suffered over 1,000 'scabs' or shallow scuffs in the surface. The Argentinians had temporarily backfilled the five large craters*, enabling them to continue to fly in C-130 Hercules transports." Hope these help clear up any confussion. There is a big difference between a cargo planes runway requirements and a fighter jets requirements. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I admit that Sharkey Ward is a bit anti-RAF, anti-Rear-Admiral-Woodward, actually anti-anyone-not-being-from-801-Naval-Air-Squadron. But the Ascension Island Commander is quoted in Lawrence Freedman's 2005-book. Why do you bring the Rowland White-reference, no one doubts that a single bomb hit the runway.
When the British forces recaptured South Georgia by force 25th April, the junta knew that Thatcher wasn't bluffing. Why didn't they deploy fast jets to Port Stanley? Was it because they knew that the runway would be attacked six days after? - No, it was because the runway was unsuitable for fast jets, RAF extended it after the war for their Phantoms. Even if every Black Buck-mission was successful and reduced the concrete to gravel, it wasn't because of Vulcan, that the fast jets originally didn't operate from Port Stanley. Necessary Evil 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Why is for the britons to difficult to understand this ? The ONLY HIT (May 1) didnt cut the runway lenght its just reduced its width to 18 metres!!. If the C-130 still operate there up to June14 did you think an A-4 would not  ? The runway was declared unsuitable for fast jets by the FAA in April (far before the Vulcans) due several reasons mainly the lack of shelters and equipment needed to operate a jet squadron there but also to maintain jets ready against a chilean threat. The Vulcans neither hit the long range 3D radar that the FAA had at Stanley. An USMC analysis : the success of BLACK BUCK can be at best described as minimal. The seven attempted missions included three aborts, three of undetermined results and one of minimal success (the first). The runway was continually used by Argentine C-130's until the end of the war. The Argentines would leave the runway covered with piles of dirt during the day causing British intelligence to surmise that repairs were still in progress. This deception mislead the British as to the condition of the airfield and the success of their raids. [14] . There is also very boring to continuosly read that as they could not destroy the runway then they scare the Mirage IIIs away. The fact the Sea Harriers didnt shot down any of them after May 1 is not enough to say they werent there. The official FAA war report shows 58 MIIIEA sorties to the islands , as a result of the May 1 dogfight experience, the FAA decided (wrong or not) the Mirage III will not go down again to risk gone out of fuel nor fight AIM-9Ls, whilst the SHarrs, wisely, didnt went at their high altitude and prefer waiting down for the unarmed-AAM strike aircraft --Jor70 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Why is for the britons to difficult to understand this", come on Jor70, your better than that - don't make it personal, we're all editors here. The sources we have found suggest there were up to around 1000 small areas of damage to the runway and 5 large craters, at least two of the large craters being due to the black buck raids and the remainder probably to sea harriers. What defines a runway as suitable for fast jets isn't simply its length or width. The runway surface is also critical, it must be of the right quality and composition. Cargo planes have enormous tyres and often they have several of them grouped together on one landing gear, so they can traverse over fairly large obstacles, dents, raises etc. in the runway making them quite forgiving. Check out this picture and see how massive the tyres on a C130 are, also, observe how the tyres are actually half inside the aircrafts airframe: [15]. On the other hand fighter jets accelerate very quckly, often with a small number of smaller tyres, not bigger than those found on a car and usually thinner which are not inside the plane but rather extended down on small struts. Check out this picture of the landing gear on an A4 Skyhawk: [16], see how flimsey and small they look by comparison to those on the C130. If they were to hit even a small dent, piece of debris or raise in the runway surface it could cause the landing gear to collpase and the plane to nosedive into the ground with disastrous consequences. That is why a C130 could operate there and the A-4 could not. The fact the FAA may have decided not to use the runway due to the constraits of the surrounding aerodrome and lack of technical equiptment does not mean to say the runway itself (i.e the actual strip of asphalt/concrete/tarmac whatever it was) couldn't support them. After the black buck raids however the choice had been made for them hadn't it, the runway was no longer structurally suitable for a fast jet to land there, and I expect C130's landed there not because they could but because they had to in order to sustain supplies, I imagine it was a calculated risk. One of the sources says the the British actually didn't immiediately reuse the runway, instead an enginner detatchment set about rebuilding it as it was not deemed suitable for British cargo aircraft to land. One slightly humerous quote in the reference refers to a british engineer who said somethign along the lines of "thank god the vulcans only hit the runway once" due to teh time and effort it took to repair. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What I was saying is that Black Bucks was not the cause of Mirage not operating from Stanley nor Mirages return to Buenos Aires, there are official FAA reports explaining that. You can show me plenty of (British) sources that claim the contrary but they are simple false. Now, if it was or not a correct FAA decision to not park A-4 on the islands during April that is another matter. Jor70 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Your (or my) opinions are of no consequence here. Simply stick to reliable sources and we will get on much better with improving the article. --John 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I like this landing gear-talk, but I miss every jet operators concern: FOD. Jet engines have a tendency of sucking in foreign objects, which could damage the compressors.
In Max Hastings:"The Battle for the Falklands" on page 203 in the San Carlos chapter (21st May):"Meanwhile, a single Aeromacchi (Aermacchi, my comment!) - almost certainly the first Fleet Air Arm (Argentine COAN, my comment!) reconnaissance aircraft flying from Port Stanley - attacked the....". The MB-339 Aermacchi, also known from the Italian aerobatics team Frecce Tricolori, is a pure jet plane with small tyres. It could operate from Port Stanley after the Vulcan raids, so FAA must have made some kind of emergency repair of at least part of the runway.
The British engineer in WikipedianProlific's source should do a permanent, peacetime repair, not a temporary, wartime one. In WWII RAF Regiments created field bases in the liberated areas in short time, so Battle Damage Repair should not have been a problem. Necessary Evil 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It should also to be noted that most of the debris he comments comes from the field artillery gunfire of June's final land battle --Jor70 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the take home message of what I'm trying to get at isn't who's right or wrong. Ultimately like my dresden and rhur valley raid examples, the effects of air raids are often extremely difficult to guage, because they have both material and moral effects, and sometimes their long term effects are tought to actually assess if they did minimal damage. Thats why I strongly oppose sentances like the one added the other day which flat out stated the raids had no effect. Anyway, ultimately we don't know whether the raids were worth it or not because we can't go back in time and see what the outcome would have been if it hadnt been done. There are sources which vehmently argue both sides as we've provided above. The best we can do therefore is say that the material costs and risks versus the benefits were questionable, and sumarise the pros and cons of both side of the debate. I understand Jor saying the British official position is "false" but again, we don't know that for sure. Maybe the raids did have some influence, just because it didn't turn up in an argentine document doesnt mean it wasn't a consideration by the government of the day, let us not forget the official secrets act still covers the falklands war in Britain until 2082. The critical analysis essays from Australia and the USMC are tough to assess because coming from foreign governments who were not directly involved they may have had limited access to information. Additionally we dont know if the rerpots were meant to influence internal US and Australian defence policy and at the time both nations were looking to move away from conventional long range bombers like the vulcan, as their reports come across to me as critical of the vulcan as much as the raids. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Australian and American sources are of value because they are not British sources, but still in English. All British sources all too positive, could be labelled POV. It is very difficult to regard material from a participant, to be NPOV.
Post-war, Operation Black Buck had a minimal effect on the British victory, but:
Looking at the data, RAF had in April 1982, Operation Black Buck was a good idea. It was plausible that Argentina would have lengthened Port Stanley's runway, to operate high-performance jets. An airbase with HAS could nest a nasty surprise for the British Task Force. Furthermore, a knocked out runway would supplement the nuclear submarines' blockade.
I actually wrote this in the article, but Sir John removed it after five minutes. Necessary Evil 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
See your user talk page for my response to your unnecessary rudeness. On the content issue, the efficacy or otherwise of Black Buck is still a live issue among military historians even after all this time. That's why it's vital that all material added is properly sourced to reliable sources. Your speculation was removed from the article (although it is perfectly reasonable speculation) because we don't deal in speculation. Anyone who thinks they fully understand the ins and outs of this issue needs to read up on it, in my view. --John 20:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I feel we are focusing our debate quite heavily on just black buck one, which in reality only made up one fifth of the actual black buck raids. Although the anti-radar raids also lacked a clearly decisive success they did none the less hit their targets, and they 'trial by fire' proved the US Shrike Anti-radar missiles. Sometimes military hardware goes its entire life without ever being fired at a genuine target, so in itself this is significant. We must remember that 1982 was still during the tensions of the cold war, the US would have been eager to know how its anti radar missiles would perform should they ever be needed against soviet targets (something I doubt we'll find a reference for although it stands to reason with common sense). Another thought is nes.evils earlier comments - "But the Ascension Island Commander is quoted in Lawrence Freedman's 2005-book. Why do you bring the Rowland White-reference, no one doubts that a single bomb hit the runway.", but I can't see whether hes objecting to the fuel because it will leave him dangerously depleated and may jeapordise future missions or whether he was simply remarking that it was an awful lot of fuel for small raids with a low probability of causing a decisive result. I wonder if we went through every <buzzword> surgical airstrike </buzzword> of the kosovo/ serbia, 1991 gulf conflicts. etc. whether we would deem them to have been worthwhile by the high standards we seem to be setting, considering a large number hit civillian targets - just a thought. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are talking about. The Ascension Island is rather small, so the number of heavy aircraft is limited. Some of those aircraft are tankers. All the other aircraft going south are dependent of these tankers; Nimrod maritime reconnaissance, Hercules long-range supply drops, RAF Harrier staging to the Task Force and the Vulcan bombers. Every Black Buck mission required 14 tankers, taken from the other missions. The Island Commander's frustration was quoted in Lawrence Freedman's 2005-book.
The Rowland White source simply states that the runway was hit, the discussion here is whether or not the crater was spoiling the Argentine war effort. Necessary Evil 23:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
But ultimately it was not the base commanders choice, after all he was a base commander not a strategic planner, therefore he would not have had all the information available to him that whitehall did. And again, so it required 14 tankers... but we have no sources to say what the impact of this requirement was on the other missions. By this time all the sea harriers may have been there, i cant remember off the top of my head, or there may have been few scheduled flights of other aircraft requiring the tankers. Equally, if the tankers were flying to support the Vulcan they may have also been able to support other aircraft along the way, but this is purely conjecture on our part now, so we arrive back at this place where we cant say for sure because we simply dont know what the impact was due to a lack of sources and information. Its a pivotall point as well because if they had the fuel and the aircraft in abundance with no urgent need for them elsewhere then why not use them even if the raids didnt have a decisive impact? But if they didn't have the resources in abundance then that suggests the minimal impact of the raids may not have been worth it. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a Danish source telling why RAF didn't attack with more than one Vulcan per mission. Every Black Buck mission needed 14 Victor tankers and a Nimrod safety plane. Of course the Nimrod could be shared by an entire squadron of Vulcans, but there were only 20 Victors on the island. There may have been an abundance of Vulcan bombers, but the bottlenecks were the limited space on the Ascension Island and the limited number of British tankers. USAF uses the Boom and receptacle system, and couldn't support the Probe and drogue RAF-system. For political reasons South Africa etc. could not be used for launching tankers either.
The Task Force didn't receive US satellite photos of the Argentine Navy, so they wanted numerous Nimrod MR.2 maritime reconnaissance sorties (up to 12 tankers per sortie), Nimrod R.1 ELINT sorties and Victor K.2 radar sorties (8 tankers per sortie). Furthermore UK ground forces wanted Hercules C.1 Long range supply airdrops (6 tankers per Herc.) and clandestine SAS/SBS sorties. 4 RAF Harrier GR.3 were ferry flown from Ascension Island to HMS Hermes (6 tankers per Harrier) and 4 more Harrier GR.3 arrived too late for the war. They took a slow-boat; Contender Bezant, south instead of flying. Perhaps the Harriers didn't ferry flew because of tanker shortage, I don't know and BTW, no Sea Harriers were ferry flown south. The Victor tankers had plenty of other tasks than Operation Black Buck and without the Vulcan raids, the ground troops could have received arctic tents (lost with MV Atlantic Conveyor), more ammunition (preventing desperate bayonet charges) and more RAF Harriers. The Task Force could also have learned the position of ARA Veinticinco de Mayo 2nd May, when she was closing in for an air strike. Because of an unusual calm wind the Task Force wasn't attacked, but a stronger, normal wind would have made it possible (BTW, the stalking Royal Navy submarine HMSm Splendid failed to find her).
Victor Tankers on a Black Buck-mission could not support other aircraft on neither inbound nor outbound legs. Necessary Evil 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW there weren't any Sea Harriers flown South as every single one available was already in the task force. Even the trials aircraft for Sea Eagle was deployed (and shot down at Goose Green killing Lt Nick Taylor). I've also seen information that would indicate that the carrier was tracked by Splendid but they were unable to take a shot due to the ROE requiring visual ID of the target that was prevented by fog. Justin A Kuntz 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justin A Kuntz, what's your source? According to Lawrence Freedman: Signals of War, ISBN 0-571-14116-1
Chapter 16, The sinking of the Belgrano, page 252 (Rules of Engagement): "Up to 23 April the nuclear submarine Splendid had kept a watch on 25 de Mayo as it exercised close to the Argentine coast. Requests from the task force to torpedo the carrier were refused, because it was considered too high-profiled."
The ROE were changed and on page 256 (British Military Operations on 1 May):"In particular, Splendid had not come across the 25 de Mayo, although it has been reported that it made long-range towed-array sonar contact with the carrier’s escorting destroyers."
And page 264 (Woodward's Request): "but the plan had gone in awry in that Splendid had been unable to make contact with the 25 de Mayo, which was now leading an Argentine offensive."
Regarding all the available Sea Harriers; 14 FRS.51 being build for the Indian Navy weren't touched, but...(Bill Gunston: Aviation Fact Files - Harrier, ISBN 0-86101-128-7) --Necessary Evil 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where I read it, it relates to one of the incidents you referred to in Freedman's book. Splendid tracked the carrier exercising in Argentinian territorial waters. At the time the RoE would not permit firing, by the time they'd changed the RoE and informed the Argentine Government via the Swiss the chance was lost. It was on off the cuff remark in an article I'd read but I've never seen it anywhere else. Justin A Kuntz 15:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
My source on the Sea Harrier seems to have been removed http://www.harrier.org.uk/ Justin A Kuntz 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
OK found it in Google cache Harrier.org Google Cache Justin A Kuntz 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The Sea Harrier site is working again and I found one of the references to British subs tracking the Argentine Carrier. [17](Registration required), however I'm not convinced of the sources reliability. Justin A Kuntz 10:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with the article in Spanish

I've taken a look at the article in Spanish. At first glance, it seems to be much better and has a lot more to say. Even though it is flagged as being a bit to long, it is currently a featured article. Perhaps someone with better Spanish language skills than me can take a look to see if there is anything that could be brought over and translated for addition to the English article. 87.112.73.252 07:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really interested in the size of articles but rather the quality. In my opinion this article is extremely good. It was a featured candidate in 2004 but failed, the main complaints then were the lack of a lead section and low referencing. Since then both of those have changed and i expect it would probably pass a FAC review now, infact I'm surpised no ones tried. A december peer review also had good things to say about it. I looked at the spanish article and didn't find it any better, infact there were several statements in there that are disputed for example but the article doesnt acknowledge it. However, as the english wikipedia we have to deal with both english - english speakers, american - english speakers etc. but also argentine, spanish etc. english speakers. As a result I think we have reached a good point where argentine views are representated as well as British views. Obviously the article will read slightly tipped in British favour, well, what do you expect? The victor writes history as has always been the case and this was a decisive British victory which secured one governments future and destroyed anothers. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 09:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I should also note that Spanish generally takes up more room than English eg a full date takes about twice the space on the page, the longer Romance words which can be rendered shorter in English synonyms. GraemeLeggett 09:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Also now I look at the article - there are some long quoted passages in it and the English version has sub articles where there are none shown in the Spanish eg the Black Buck raidsGraemeLeggett 10:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Royal Navy was saved by the Falklands War

Where did the material in this section come from? Is it a translation from the Spanish version of this article, or from an original work (not a copyrighted one, I trust) in another language? While the standard of grammar is on the whole good, it needs a fair amount of editing... and personally I would not want to undertake that, only to find that the passage has to be removed. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Look in the Falklands_War#Notes section. Here is a refresher:
  • chapter 1 Forgotten Islands in Max Hastings:The Battle for the Falklands, ISBN 0-7181-2228-3
  • Going South by Sir Henry Leach in Falklands 25 - Official Commemorative Publication, ISBN 1-905435-44-4
  • chapter 7 Conclusion in Antony Preston:Sea Combat off the Falklands - the Lessons That Must Be Learned, ISBN 0-00-218046-4
All London based books, in English language. Have fun with the reading matter, Necessary Evil 21:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
{smacks self} Why didn't i think of that? Thanks for the info; I will go ahead and tidy up a few things. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm done. Since I speak not a single word of Danish, I really should apologise if I gave the impression of criticising your use of this language. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's OK. I've never said I was perfect in English. When you are reading books, you cannot copy the sentences or phrases, that would violate copyrights. So you have to describe the contents in your own words, that's where the devil is buried ;-)
Why did you move the <to be continued> sign, I was about to describe the navy cuts later?
Necessary Evil 22:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I'm not that familiar with HTML so I didn't recognise it as a comment. I thought it was left in by mistake, but the mistake was mine. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've edited this a little further. I think the idea behind it is good, as its true the Royal Navy was probably the service most affected in the long run by the war. Infact even now in 2007, the Royal Navy's two new carriers under the CVF project are probably a direct result of the lessons learnt during the falklands war. I removed the suggestion that the british bases overseas were relics though, this isn't really true. Infact some of the most advanced and important bases were overseas (e.g. gibralter). I also removed the section about parts of the empire gaining independence, this is 1982, the nations that seperated from the UK had really long since done so by the war, and generally these nations were largely responsible for their own protection even during the days of the empire, which was often achieved largely through sepoy armies (armies raised from the local inhabitants, but often with British officers) supported by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy where needed. Equally the British army ended up acting more as an internal counter-revolutionary army back then not a protection force, for example in malaysia, where the fighting was internal not external. But all this empire stuff was dead and buried by 82' so its not really that relevant. I think the key point behind it is that the concept of a blue water navy (the ability to project and defend forces and military material overseas at short notice). Only three or four countries can really do it, and the UK is one, if it werent for the falklands war the UK probably wouldn't have sustained a blue water navy, instead opting for more of a border protection and submarine force. Prior to 82' carriers were seen by much of the world as a liability, as the sinking of a carrier would cost billions in aircraft, shipping and personnel not to mention take years to replace. The loss of life would be hard to justify publicly to. After 82' carriers were seen over the world as the centre pin of a blue water maritime force. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 22:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The relics of the Empire were the small scattered islands, friendly to British ruling, NOT the overseas bases. While the army and air force were tailor-made for NATO with US support, the navy was overqualified, because of the relics. John Nott wanted to downsize the navy to an anti-Soviet NATO contribution, mostly for economic reasons. Your Blue Water Fleet confuses me, destroyers hunting submarines in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean is definitely not a Brown Water Fleet.
Regarding your pre-82 carrier view; US Navy received its first Nimitz-class supercarrier in 1975. Don't you mean it boosted Sea Harrier carriers for regional powers (Italy, India, Spain..)? Necessary Evil 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a use of Blue Water where expeditionary is more appropriate, although blue water is reasonable. North Atlantic ASW takes place in a blue water environment, but it's a limited role.
In terms of the section itself, I'd say it could half in size. all the precursors to the Nott review are tangential to the point that Nott was raping the operational capability to make budget cuts. It certainly reads like a cut and paste from somewhere else, although I note your point above that it's technically not.
I think the final section about Fearless and Intrepid could be altered, they were replaced by Albion and Bulwark, so the Landing Force capability wasn't lost, which is implied by the current wording.
ALR 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi ALR, the Fearless and Intrepid remarks in the end should show that they survived John Nott's budget axe, nothing else. Necessary Evil 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd disagree. The Rn retained an amphibious landing capability. That's the important point, not the eventual fate of two ships as individual entities.
ALR 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, how do we disagree? John Nott wanted to scrap or sell Fearless and Intrepid. Since they weren't decommissioned before 1999/2002, it is proof that their participation in the Falklands War saved them (and Royal Navy's amphibious capability). Necessary Evil 07:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've edited again, to clear up a few things. Firstly removing the use of this term 'True carrier'. A vessel equipt with a runway and aircraft which can launch conventionally is an aircraft carrier, this whole true carrier thing becomes confussing, because your suggesting that invincible isn't a true carrier? yet it is clearly a purpose built aircraft carrier. I would agree that to call say HMS Ocean a carrier is a bit dodgy but invincible is unmistakably a carrier. The difference between carriers is obseved in tonnage not this true carrier stuff. Invincible therefore was a light carrier weighing in at 20,600 tons. USS nimitz, the first of its class built in 1975 (the same time perioid) by contrast weighs in at 104,000 tons and is therefore called a super-carrier. This buissness about RN sailors with second jobs really really needs a reference if its to be included. I still think the section needs to centre on the idea that the affect on the RN was about capability to project force. Prior to 82' the RN was intended to be used primarily as in an ASW role against the soviet union as part of a larger NATO naval force. The falklands war shifted that school of though completely making navies around the world (Not just the RN!) realise that blue water fleets were still critical for protecting overseas territory. I can provide evidence of this. Another thing I've changed is the title -- it was Royal Navy was saved by the Falklands War this is just untrue. There was never talk of getting rid of the navy so the title is misleadingly suggestive. Its more a case that the navy was reorganised and re-equipt to fight a different kind of conflict after tthe war. (again this transition from a primarily ASW navy to a blue water navy with massive power projection ability). WikipedianProlific(Talk) 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"A true aircraft carrier launch aircraft conventionally" - hmm, that most be 'turning into the wind' to get enough headwind for take off and arrester wires for landing. That isn't necessary for an Invincible-class, which BTW was called 'through deck cruisers' to avoid upsetting anti-Ark Royal people. Because of the ski-jump, neither Hermes nor Invincible could operate refurbished Fairey Gannet AEW planes, which was seriously considered. Instead 30-year-old HMS Bulwark was suggested, before the idea was dropped (Antony Preston:Sea Combat off the Falklands...).
The subsection from "Strained by two oil crises," to "The head of the admiralty," is having Max Hastings as a source, including the sailors pay.
Regarding the title, Royal Navy WAS saved from the budget axe by the Falklands War, but since you misunderstood it, others could too. The current title is pointless, as it doesn't reveal the fact that Royal Navy was benefiting from the war. In short term all the cuts were abandoned and the ships were improved with CIWS, better fire fighting equipment etc., and in longer terms to all the above you wrote.
Royal Navy wasn't yet a sole ASW navy since it still had left-overs to 'power projection' (in 1982). I'm aware that without a Falklands War, Royal Navy would still exist today. Necessary Evil 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Media

I reverted the reference to the Sun as your edit doesn't reflect the source that you're quoting. The article makes clear that the Sun was the only paper that behaved in that way. It specifically says that One paper stood out - for its xenophobic, bloody-minded, triumphalist coverage. Your edit implies that most British papers behaved that way. If you want to make an edit that reflects your source, that is fine. At the moments its pushing a POV. In the interests of NPOV, it should also reflect that most Argentine media were very jingoistic (I think they sank HMS Invincible six times). Justin A Kuntz 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"On the contrary an extreme tabloid paper like The Sun was very nationalistic with "Stick it up your Junta!" and "Britain 6, Argentina 0." headlines". How could that imply that most British papers behaved that way?? Furthermore "and many reporters, especially from the BBC, wanted to cover the war in a neutral fashion. They referred to "the British troops" and "the Argentinian troops" instead of "our lads" and the dehumanised "Argies""
You disliked a small portion of the section, so you removed a large portion - why not the entire article?? The BBC coverage was from another source and regarding Argentine media, "The glossy magazines Gente and Siete Días swell to sixty pages with colour photographs and eyewitness reports of the Argentine commandos' guerrilla war on South Georgia 6th May and an already dead Pucará pilot's attack on HMS Hermes". Feel free to find other sources for Argentine jingoism. --Necessary Evil 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well look at the language for a start, on the contrary implies that the preceding text is incorrect. If you want to say the Sun broke with the rest of the British media, that would reflect your source. Your edit at the moment doesn't. My suggestion would be:
Alone among the British media, the Sun was very nationalistic with headlines such as "Gotcha" and "Stick it up your Junta!"
Other tabloids took a more neutral tone, for instance your source mentions the Mirror took an anti-war stance. Justin A Kuntz 22:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to insert your suggestion instead of using the [undo] button. Regarding NPOV there are many players; Argentina vs. UK, Conservative vs. Labour. Being anti-war isn't neutral, it is POV. You have so many weblinks, do you have any with Thatcher as a pirate, Invincible on fire etc? Jimmy Burns: The land that lost its heroes, 1987, Bloomsbury Publishing, ISBN 0-7475-0002-9 had pictures of that, but it is copyrighted. Necessary Evil 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes Anti-War is POV, your point is exactly? My point was your edit only added the jingoistic, xenophobic Sun tabloid, which is the opposite spectrum of the POV. So you edit wasn't NPOV and didn't reflect your source, which was why I reverted it. As your source pointed out, the majority of the British media was decidedly neutral. BTW regarding your request for imagery any images of originally Argentine copyright would be free use as copyright expires after 25 years in Argentina. If you want to work up an edit here, I'm happy to help. I'm at work at the moment, I'll see what I can pull from my bookmarks at home this evening. Justin A Kuntz 08:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unindent. I edited your Sun edit and then reverted to the previous consensus. Have a look at my edit and let me know what you think. I have some concerns that the edit is veering into WP:SOAP territory. Is there any way to get more advice on the applicable policy. Justin A Kuntz 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your opinion is in this matter. It seems to me that you're pretty upset about something, since you removed it all. You're writing POV and NPOV all the time, but NPOV could be either consensus or presenting both sides' POV.
"Other tabloids took a more neutral tone, for instance your source mentions the Mirror took an anti-war stance." you mean anti-war is neutral but it is Point-Of-View.
"reverted to the previous consensus" - consensus, whose consensus?? In June this section was created and User:SheffieldSteel, User:Hornplease and I edited it. In August some User:BriKaBraK removed the same lines as you, even though it was sourced by Sir Lawrence Freedman. Consensus is pre-BriKaBraK. I don't have the book any longer (damn library!) so to be sure I inserted sources that were at hand.
Royal Navy wanted a World War Two style positive news campaign. - The British Army had suffered losses in Northern Ireland and addressed the press in another manner; the navy was rather green in modern press relations. (check)
BBC and other British media wanted to cover the war in a neutral fashion. (check)
The Sun covered the war in a bloodthirsty, nationalistic... manner - like their football coverage today.(check)
You added that the Daily Mirror was anti-war (as Financial Times).(ok, I missed it)
Are you embarrassed that a British newspaper was on a level with a dictatorship's media? You don't have to push British POV by covering The Sun with excuses, even democracies have Goebbels apprentices.
Be constructive, not destructive. Necessary Evil 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're making assumptions about my motives that aren't there. So what is your motivation? Trying to make the British look bad? See I can bandy accusations about, it certainly doesn't indicate that you're assuming good faith.
The issue I had was that your edit took the comment about the Sun out of context, with the implication that the British media was generally like that. I modified it to NPOV that reflected your source. Do you have a problem with that? And I hardly think that I'm pushing a British POV when I referred to the Sun as Jingoistic and Xenophobic. That was constructive, I also reverted it because we hadn't achieved a consensus yet had we?
I also have some concerns that such comments could fall foul of Wiki policies such as WP:SOAP, which is why I suggested that perhaps a third party should have a look at my edit before it goes into the article. Is that being unreasonable? Justin A Kuntz 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
My motives? I'm glad you asked me that - my motive is to inform the readers about the media coverage of the Falklands War. Royal Navy wanted a patriotic news campaign but many wanted to cover the war in a neutral fashion. Is it the word wanted that confuses you - it could be interpreted as they wanted, but didn't. Okay: "..but many covered the war in a neutral..".
It all started with BriKaBak's halfhearted reading and deletion of sourced material. I bet he didn't even bother to come back. I wrote:"a paper like The Sun was very nationalistic with "Stick it up your Junta!"". How on Earth could "a paper" become "the British media was generally like that"? Furthermore you are missing the point: RN wanted a positive.., many reporters ..neutral and a paper (the Sun) delivered it too positive. "I modified it to NPOV that reflected your source. Do you have a problem with that?" - you removed everything, why not delete the whole article, then there is no POV problem.
Third party should look at - NOTHING, why should people bother looking at deleted material, especially if the writer had second thoughts and self-reverted it. Most of my lines were approved by User:SheffieldSteel and User:Hornplease.
Your hidden edition is IMO too long, you are excusing British media. Wikipedians can understand the difference between many and one:

-- The Royal Navy expected Fleet Street to conduct a World War Two style patriotic news campaign (like:"off to the Falklands Islands to bash the Argentines") but the majority of the British press, especially the BBC, reported the war in a neutral fashion referring to "the British troops" and "the Argentinian troops" instead of "our lads" and the dehumanised "Argies". The exceptions were the jingoistic tabloid paper The Sun with headlines such as "Stick it up your Junta!" and The Daily Mirror which was decidedly anti-war. -- Necessary Evil 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"my motive is to inform the readers about the media coverage of the Falklands War", which would be my motive as well actually. So let us both assume good faith rather than accusing me of pushing a POV. You've already pointed out one issue I had with your edit. I pointed out the other earlier in that one sentence flatly contradicted the preceding one. And with respect you seem to be missing the point because your edit didn't put across the message you wanted to.
I also went back and had a look at the history. BriKaBak reverted an edit with unsourced material. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falklands_War&oldid=153612028#_ref-77

Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
My next concern is that the edit was falling foul of WP:SOAP, specifically:

Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

Because the edit relies heavily on the Guardian source, which is basically an opinion piece about the Sun and is to some extent intellectual snobbery (the Guardian article that is). Hence, my suggestion not demand that we should ask a third party more familiar with policy to look at it. So why did you dismiss that idea out of hand without really considering it?
If you want my suggestion for an edit it would modify your text along these lines:

The Royal Navy expected Fleet Street to conduct a pro-British news campaign but the majority of the British press, especially the BBC, reported the war in a neutral fashion. Reporters referred to "the British troops" and "the Argentinian troops" instead of "our lads" and the dehumanised "Argies". The exceptions were the jingoistic tabloid paper The Sun with headlines such as "Stick it up your Junta!" and The Daily Mirror, which was decidedly anti-war. The Sun was widely condemned for its use of the headline "Gotcha" when announcing the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano.[1].

I removed the example from the first sentence because it didn't add anything that the example in the next sentence gave and re-arranged the sentence to improve grammar. I've also added a note about the infamous "Gotcha" headline, because I think it is important to note that the reporting by the Sun was and has been since widely condemned. Justin A Kuntz 08:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

unindent

"you are excusing British media" I take great exception to that comment, my edit did no such thing. Will you please cease these baseless accusations. Justin A Kuntz 08:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You ARE excusing the British media with a lame line, informing that The Sun was condemned. The BBC was condemned as being unpatriotic, the Daily Mirror was anti-Thatcher and therefore anti-war. Stating that The Sun was 'a jingoistic exception' above is enough. The last line (except the ref.) is either superfluous or belongs to the Belgrano section. Else your suggestion is good, except BBC is IMHO not 'British press'. 'British media' instead?
Maybe my browser is more advanced, showing the refs or maybe I need some education. The Lawrence Freedman source was covering the United Kingdom: subsection, also the BBC part. Should every sentence be marked with the same source to satisfy robots like BriKaBak, scanning for swearwords like Argies?
It is strange that you have information regarding Argentine claims of sinking HMS Invincible six times. Instead of pretending that all British journalists were boy scouts, you should insert the Argentine claim so that the readers could judge for themselves.
As long as you have reverted yourself, nobody will scrutinise your edits.
You're right that The Guardian web link is partial, but 'Stick It Up Your Junta' was a The Sun front-page. You can't blame The Guardian for reproducing public front-pages. Necessary Evil 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not making excuses for the British media and it is not a lame line that the Sun was universally condemned for the "Gotcha" headline. Again please stop these baseless accusations and demonstrate a little good faith here. Its an important feature of the coverage of the media. You claim that your motivation is "to inform the readers about the media coverage of the Falklands War" yet you want to expunge such details.
The BBC would normally be considered part of the press but happy to consider the use of media if it is more universal. If the BBC was condemned as unpatriotic, then by all means feel free to add it, though I don't recall such accusations. Again its informing the readers about the media coverage of the Falklands War. I am aware that many considered the BBC to have been on the "other" side with some of the details they published (like the number of UXBs and the reason why, as well as announcing the assault on Goose Green before it started).
And I never claimed that the British media were "boy scouts" either but it is acknowledged that the British media coverage was generally neutral with some exceptions. That is the conclusion supported by the source you used. Please don't misrepresent what I'm doing, your continued and persistent presumption of bad faith is not helpful. I offered to help remember.
My concerns with the Guardian article is that it is an opinion piece, and hence falls foul of WP:SOAP. Hence, I would like to seek a third party endorsement before it goes into the main article. I had planned to ask Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri for his input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin A Kuntz (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
British media/British press, you are the expert. I just thought that it was only the newspapers that were considered 'the press'.
You contradict yourself: you imply that the 'The Guardian' web page is partial/unreliable (I agree), but then you cling to its content - please make up your mind. YOU KNOW that The Sun published a front-page 'Stick It Up Your Junta', and I KNOW IT too. But to satisfy BriKaBak, I inserted the 'The Guardian' as a source for one purpose; proof that 'The Sun' published the front-page 'Stick It Up Your Junta', that's all. Let's imagine that you discover an Argentine web page, with a picture of a burning Invincible. You place the web page as a source for the picture, due to copyright problems (forget the 25 years rule for a moment). Does that mean that you agree with every word on the web page?
Readers may tire at the many details - else BBC reporters being patriotic or 'The Sun' reporters being neutral should be inserted too; and when a patriotic reporter from the neutral BBC had delivered a neutral report... Neither mentioning the condemnation of the BBC nor mentioning the condemnation of 'The Sun' counterbalance each other - NPOV is restored. Necessary Evil 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't contradict myself, look what is your problem here? Why are you always assuming bad faith?
My problem with the Guardian article, is that its an OPINION piece, why do you have a problem understanding that?
I am trying to help here, I didn't think my edit was too far of the mark and since you only seem to want to argue the toss, I am going to go ahead and ask for a third party opinion. Justin A Kuntz 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

unindent.

Done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abu-Fool_Danyal_ibn_Amir_al-Makhiri#Help_Requested if you wish to add anything. Justin A Kuntz 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wasting my time, Justin A Kuntz. You really don't understand what you are doing. Your reverts are like repairing a wristwatch with a sledgehammer and you cannot see it's wrong! You are trigger-happy with the [Undo] button. You disagreed with something that you saw - fair enough. But then you removed the whole subsection, even the neutral BBC part you agree on. That is clumsy and not very constructive. If you were a doctor and the patient had a bad fingernail, you would remove the whole arm!
You are not editing, you are kind of vandalising. Imagine if other wikipedians did like you; if they saw a misspelled word in the previous editors' contribution and (instead of correcting the misspelled word) hit the [Undo] button. Maybe the [Undo] button will be named after you! Necessary Evil 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am truly bemused why you are being so hostile, truly any misunderstanding is because you persistently assume bad faith. Justin A Kuntz 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you are so blindly determined to put something in, despite some concerns and that we hadn't agreed a consensus text, I've edited it to reflect what we discussed here. Your references supported nothing that you put in. I suggest you read WP:RS and also since you appear to be threatening to edit war WP:3RR. However, if my concerns prove valid I will be removing that text. Justin A Kuntz 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have discarded your sledgehammer and are doing some constructive editing. Now I assume good faith.
The whole United Kingdom: section was sourced by Sir Lawrence Freedman: Official History of the Falklands Campaign, 2005, but BriKaBak didn't noticed it (Nick Dowling didn't noticed it either, BTW) and removed a 3-user consensus subsection. I believe that he was triggered by the word "Argies". I reinserted the subsection - with other sources, as the book wasn't in my possession any longer. Then you pressed the [Undo] button again and again, instead of editing it constructively. That was hostile IMO!
'The Sun' was selling more copies than 'Daily Mirror' so it was only "One paper stood out", but a pretty BIG one!
All the 'Stick It Up Your Junta' sources on the Internet aren't very good; as you wrote they are partial. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Sun_(newspaper) is probably unpartial, but it is wiki. I've reserved two English books regarding media and the Falklands War, David E. Morrison's and Robert Harris'. That will help. Necessary Evil 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I never had a sledge hammer approach, your edits didn't reflect your source and that was the only reason I reverted them. That and the fact they didn't appear to be properly sourced. Pardon me but as the edit history is there, if your edits were properly sourced then the reference is still there - you could have simply gone back and looked them up. I've never been hostile toward you, I'm just bemused by the hostility you projected onto me. If you'd had problems with editors in the past thats one thing, projecting them onto someone coming cold to this is not acceptable IMHO.
If you know the UK, the Sun and the Mirror were the two biggest tabloids at the time. Interesting you should comment that the Sun sold more than the Daily Mirror, my recollection of the period was that the Mirror was doing rather better. Do you have the figures for the circulation of both papers?
I still have some concerns about the article, I'm not happy about relying on the Guardian opinion piece. Justin A Kuntz 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Just goes to show you shouldn't rely on memory. The Sun surpassed the Daily Mirror in circulation terms in 1977.
http://www.mmc.gov.uk/rep_pub/reports/1985/fulltext/190c02.pdf
Unfortunately the period of 1982 isn't covered Justin A Kuntz 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Your sledgehammer approach: you disliked the sentence:"On the contrary a paper like 'The Sun' was very nationalistic with "Stick it up your Junta!" and "Britain 6, Argentina 0." headlines" because the source was from The Sun's rival The Guardian. Did you surgically removed the sentence or replaced it or edited it?
NO you took your sledgehammer and hit the [Undo] button - mission accomplished, the sentence was removed. BUT other sentences covered by other sources were removed too; The BBC referred to ‘Argentinian troops’ and ‘British troops’ and presented an objective view according to the Channel 4 source and Lawrence Freedman's 2005-book. Why should that be removed? As you're eager to show that the British Press wasn't jingoistic except The Sun, a deletion is strange. Neutral, British books states that the Royal Navy wanted a patriotic news coverage - that was a line not covered by the partial 'The Guardian' source, so why did you delete that too? Don't you read what you are deleting? Or do you have a prejudice against non-British editors: "I disagree with one part, so 'better safe than sorry' and delete it all". Or maybe you are plain lazy and the [Undo] button is an easy action.
On the bottom line — Undoing is sloppy, unless it's part of fighting vandalism. Necessary Evil 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I forgot to add an edit summary. I've added other references to back up the point that the Sun's Gotcha headline was universally condemned in the UK in 1982. I believe Harris' book also includes some measure of the controversy surrounding the headline, so you may like to add that in. Justin A Kuntz 10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

I really think the map ought to encompass both combatants as well as the scene of the conflict. I realise this means including most of the world on the map, but otherwise there is no perspective to be gained on the distance the Royal Navy had to fight, for instance. 128.208.1.238 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Special Forces on Mount Kent

Starting to work through the citation needed tags.

This one:

As a result of Major Mario Castagneto's efforts, his 601st Commando Company was able to move forward on their Kawasaki motorbikes [citation needed] and commandeered Landrovers, under heavy mortar fire, and rescue the trapped 602s on the slopes of Mount Kent. Major Castagneto was awarded the CHVC for this overland rescue and was wounded in the mortar bombardment when a piece of shrapnel cut through his belt buckle.

Appears to be the complete opposite of what happened from other sources.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/David/kent2.html

Major Mario Castagneto, who commanded 601 Commando Company was itching to get to grips with the British on the Kent zone. Authorised to make a reconnaissance in force to the Kent ridgeline, he turned this into an "advance to contact". The Special Operations Group was to have reached the Kent ridge line in jeeps with Major Mario Castagneto on Monday 31 May but, because Malvinas Joint Command believed the British aircraft carrier 'Invincible' had been sunk the day before, the forty Air Force Commandos under Wing Commander Alberto Cajihara, were redeployed to guard the TPS-43 long-range radar against an expected Special Air Service attack. (See Isidoro Jorge Ruiz-Moreno, Comandos en Accion:El Ejercito [Argentino] en Malvinas, p. 292, Emece, 1986) It was 0955 Falkland Islands time on Monday 31 May when 602 Commando Company on Estancia Mountain saw 601 Commando Company in a column of Land Rovers and Kawasaki motorbikes coming to the rescue but the rescue bid failed when 42 Royal Marine Commando Battalion's 81 millimetre Mortar Platoon dispersed Major Mario Castagneto's Special Forces Company. The bike ridden by Drill Sergeant Juan Salazar was thrown into the air by a near-miss and seconds later his bike recieved a direct hit. The 601st Commando Company was deluged with mortar rounds and Major Mario Castagneto received a nasty wound when a piece of shrapnel cut through his belt buckle. Faced with such opposition, the force had no option but to withdraw to Two Sisters Mountain. Lieutenant-Colonel Nick Vaux on Mount Kent was later to recall in his memoirs (March to the South Atlantic, Buchan & Enright, 1986) the ground around Major Mario Castagneto and his men erupt in gouts of peat and rock splinters under the sustained impact of dozens of mortarbombs. At 1030 Captain Eduardo Villarruel on Estancia Mountain muttered "we have to give in". After conferring with Captain Ferrero, Villarruel ordered the withdrawal of the 602nd Special Forces Company. The 3rd Parachute Battalion closing in from Estancia House convinced Villarruel of the futility of further resistance. "If the Argentinian withdrawal had begun a day later, it would have been disastrous for the Commando force," wrote Isidoro Jorge Ruiz-Moreno, the official historian of the 601st and 602nd Commando Company and the Elite 25th Regiment of the 'Ejercito Argentino'.

Britains Small Wars is usually a reliable source of information and its quoting the official Argentine historian. So I think this may need re-writing. Justin A Kuntz 10:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC) paul mark the thirds snitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.231.27 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As no sources substantiating the current edit have been supplied I've edited the text along the lines suggested by this source. Justin talk 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

100 yr closure order

Continuing to work through the citations. From memory there was a 100 yr closure order related to the Falklands war but I don't rely on memory. I can't find a source, can anyone help? Justin talk 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union

What was the USSR's attitude to the war? Rusty2005 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

From Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands

During the 1982 war, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries maintained an official neutrality, despite Argentine diplomatic attempts to acquire support at the United Nations Security Council. Although the UK feared possible Soviet interference by providing Argentina with satellite intelligence or arms, Argentina confirmed after the war that no support was received.

Justin talk 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

UK Media Censorship

Can't add this now - last section [18] John 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The recently deleted and re-added bit

I am not sure what '(The army and the RAF have already been tailormade for NATO.)' is acctually trying to say or what its saying within context of the paragraph. Is it saying that the army has been tailormade to fight within NATO? Thats a nice observation, but totally irrelevant to the decline of blue water navy thinking and the decline of the navy in general....it just seems to be some random thoughts someone bunged in somewhere down the line...Narson 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The original headline of the section was "Royal Navy was saved by the Falklands War". Royal Navy benefited from the Falklands War since John Nott wanted to decrease the number of ships. The Army and RAF were already downsized to UK's contribution to NATO in Northern West Germany only (except Northern Ireland and ceremonial duties for the Army and national air defence for RAF), but Royal Navy was still a blue water navy due to Britain's commitment to the former empire. Since most colonies were sovereign in primo 1980's, Royal Navy was overqualified. Royal Navy was saved by the Falklands War from a 'Green-water navy' destiny. The Army and RAF didn't benefit from the war in similar fashion, in fact the Vulcan bombers were still scrapped in 1983. I've changed the headline to a more logical one. Necessary Evil 06:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Justin A Kuntz. Has your 'feelings' something to do with an US-British dispute regarding brown water/green water navy classification? Since it's Royal Navy, the British term should be used - what is the modern British name? Necessary Evil 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really, I just thought it was a clumsy title and using a technical term that perhaps a layman wouldn't understand. We're attempting to write an encyclopedia not a naval college dissertation. Justin talk 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
And the British-English term is.. Necessary Evil 16:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Blue water. A navy capable of operating across large, deep oceans with significant force projection capabilities (air cover, submersible defense and amphibious support are all implied) at relatively short notice is the british definition of a blue water navy. One has to be careful when comparing US and UK naval terms as the two navies have evolved quite seperately. Generally in the UK the term brown or green water isn't used, instead the term 'littoral' is used for areas close to land. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 22:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the UK use 'Expeditionary Fleet' in favour of 'Blue Water'? Though, I am sure we call it Blue Water Doctrine....? Narson 22:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I see someone beat me to it, the British term would be littoral. Green/Brown tends to be an American term. Green implies a littoral or mainly coastal force, brown implies an estuarine or river based force. Green may be capable of blue operations just to confuse things. I would suggest there was never any intention to operate a Green Water navy since the main focus was ASW in the North Atlantic - not a Green Water operation. Justin talk 23:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Falklands War press coverage

The Sun supported the territorial integrity of the UK. That's patriotism, not xenophobia or jingoism. Did the Sun support wiping the Argentinians off the planet because their government had invaded British soil? Of course not. Wikipedia is not served by inserting ridiculous left-wing hall of echoes POV. The Gotcha headline was considered a bad decision by the editor after the fact, when further information over how much danger it had posed at the time of the sinking came out. It was certainly crass, but at least it wasn't Guardian fiddling with foresight. Nimmo 09:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

xenophobia A pathological fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners. xenophobic Suffering from xenophobia, a fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners. Possibly too strong an adjective in this case but its use was intended to convey that The Sun's coverage dehumanised the enemy as "The Argies". I'm happy to consider an alternative adjective but that is an issue related to The Sun's coverage that needs to be considered in the article.
jingoism Excessive patriotism or aggressive nationalism esp. as regards foreign policy. The Sun's coverage was overtly and excessively nationalistic with numerous headlines such as Stick it up your Junta and Gotcha. I contend that jingoism was an adequate description.
Now you don't have to either xenophobic or jingoistic to be patriotic. In fact, it was that well known Pinko Commie Subversive Winston Churchill who talked about magnanimity in victory. Justin talk 11:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Very funny. While the Sun's coverage was hardly sensitive to the feelings of the Argentinians, the more triumphalist headlines came after Britain had struck back after a series of hard blows. Perhaps not the calmest way to express a sense of national pride, but they were far from jingoistic. Simply relating the Sun's reference to Britain's enemies at the time as 'Argies' is all we need. Nimmo 00:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting observation from Narson. On the one hand he and I are accused of pushing a pro-British POV and even Anti-Argentine bias by one of our Argentine editors. On the other we're accused of pushing a Left Wing Anti-British POV by our British colleagues. Now thats funny but I'm easily amused.
Now you acknowledge that the Sun's coverage included "triumphalist headlines", sorry but that is in fact jingoism, the rest of the British press (Mirror excluded) managed to cover the same war without the hyperbole. Again you don't have to push jingoistic trimphalist headlines to be patriotic, again probably OR but did the Telegraph do that? Are you suggesting that the Telegraph editors were in some way less patriotic? Also the rest of the press managed to cover the war without dehumanising the enemy, only the Sun felt the need to do that.
Another point that is OR would be to ask the Toms and Matelots what they thought of the Sun's coverage of the war. I can tell you that many were disgusted by the Sun's coverage, are they somehow not patriotic?
The edit you're suggesting is that 1. Majority of the Press was neutral, 2. Mirror was anti-war and 3. only the Sun was patriotic. Does that reflect the press coverage of the war? Justin talk 08:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
And the version you're advocating suggests that the Sun was xenophobic and jingoistic, the Mirror was anti-war, and the majority of the press was neutral. The Sun's references to Argies are as xenophobic and dehumanizing as references to Jerries during the Battle of Britain would be, in a time just as uncertain. In context, their reporting fitted patriotism far better than jingoism. Perhaps an impolite and often offensive expression of patriotism, but they did their tabloid thing.
However, this isn't a priority for me. I've been rather impolite to you over the course of this discussion, and I'm sure we both have better things to do. My objection to the incorrect characterization of the Sun's reporting stands, but you seem to be in that rather murky position of semi-owning the article, and that's a good thing. I'm easily amused by those who continue to defend a war of conquest devised to pander to them, too, and I'll keep watching, but you can have the conquistadores. Nimmo 11:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
While it would be OR and unsuitable for entry, I recommend reading the 'Gotcha' article and comparing it with, say, the Daily Telegraph's report on the D-Day landings. The Sun does indeed take it to a whole new level. (And I am sure we can all agree the Torygraph is definatly not left wing) Narson 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. However, the Sun's editors could reasonably have judged that the national resolve needed more support during the Falklands than in almost any of Britain's other wars. Nimmo 00:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/falklands/story/0,11707,657850,00.html The Sun in the Falklands War]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falklands_War/Archive_6&oldid=1144093732"