Jump to content

Talk:Falklands War/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

British planning concerns for the battle

A couple of users appear to be playing armchair general and viewing the conflict in retrospect. Yes, the Argentine air power was considerable, and Argentine surface ships were not important in the battle. However, at the time of the task force's dispatch, Woodward's staff underestimated Argentine air power and was rightfully concerned about Argentine surface ships, some of which possessed similar capability and weaponry to British ships. As you can see, I have cited it, with Hastings and Jenkins chapter 7 describing the British navy's planning process in sufficient detail. One of the most authoritative sources on the conflict explicitly backs up what I wrote. K.Bog 07:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The authoritative source the Official Histories by Lawrence Freedman contradicts you, I have reverted and added a cite. I've also gone back and looked at Chapter 7 of Jenkins & Hastings. You haven't actually cited it, because that isn't a conclusion made in that book. They make several references to the air threat and the lack of AEW aircraft. There is discussion on the surface threat but the focus is on the air threat and counter acting it. Your edit could be at best described as WP:SYN and WP:OR as you draw conclusions not made by the author but could equally well be described as citation fraud. To be absolutely blunt about it, it doesn't back up what you wrote. So you come here making bad faith accusations against other editors, suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and whilst claiming to have cited your edit, didn't. WCMemail 10:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Uhh, page 115 clearly states that "Most officers of all ranks admitted later that, at this stage, they gravely underrated the power of the Argentine air force." It then states that "The surface threat seemed very real indeed" and goes in detail about why the British were concerned about Argentine surface power. So yes, it does explicitly back up what I wrote, and I'm not particularly bothered by your attempt to accuse me of fraud. K.Bog
Those two sentences taken out of context don't make your argument. Neither the author, nor the people quoted make a statement that the surface threat was their primary concern. You're now adding material that isn't supported by your cite. WCMemail 20:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I've checked the ref provided for the statement that "The British were concerned about their prospects against the Argentine surface fleet because it possessed many of the same weapons systems and capabilities as the British fleet" and also agree that it doesn't support this wording. The reference says that the British commanders were concerned about the capabilities of the Argentine Navy and didn't want to fight its surface ships directly if possible given that the British ships weren't greatly qualitatively superior, but doesn't say that the commanders were particularly worried about "their prospects" if such a fight took place - they seem to have been confident that they could have out-run the Argentine fleet (which lacked tankers) and/or defeated it with submarines and surface action groups. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The source clearly shows that both were of concern to the British - evidently you misread if you believed that the British were not significantly concerned by Argentine surface ships, and I can easily pull up more quotes which would prove the point. Please take the time to examine the wording more carefully; this also goes to the user who mindlessly performed a revert without doing the same. K.Bog 03:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks? Continued edit warring without an edit summary despite the discussion here going against you? Congratulations, you've just lost this discussion. The kindest thing that can be said about your treatment of Hastings and Jenkins' book is that you're cherry picking stuff from it (eg, that the British were concerned, while ignoring the fact that they had a robust plan in place to deal with the Argentine surface fleet in the event it tried to challenge them). Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh, the current revision which you (again) reverted was different from earlier versions and did not contain any material which was contradicted by WCM's assertions. My "continued edit warring" was adjusting the material to accommodate WCM's concerns, but you apparently didn't pay close enough attention to notice. By this point you're merely reverting edits for the sake of making a point when I've written perfectly uncontroversial material. I don't know why you think that the fact that Britain had a plan means they weren't concerned - if anything, the fact that they made plans shows that they were concerned. Here's some more quotes which prove my point, and though you may dismiss them as "cherrypicked", they should demonstrate the point well enough: "The admiral himself seemed to regard surface action against elements of the Argentine navy as most likely, with a serious threat from the enemy's two modern German 209 submarines, and the possible further risk of attack from the air... The surface threat seemed very real indeed. 'When you are fighting your own weapons system, it is difficult to feel superior,' as one officer put it. The Argentinians possessed at least six destroyers and frigates fitted with Exocet ship-to-ship missiles... 'Exocet v. Exocet,' said Jeremy Black of Invincible thoughtfully. 'Hmm. That's not nice.' The British submarines would be doing everything in their power to mark the key units of the enemy's fleet, but the British believed that a determined Argentine attempt to break out could succeed." Congratulations, YOU have just lost this discussion. The British were very much concerned, and if you believe that the article should also include their plans then feel free to add those plans in. Next time an editor goes to your talk page to enlist your help in winning an edit war, double check everything so that you don't make these mistakes. And I'm sorry for forgetting about an edit summary, but I don't know why you would take it personally. Certainly it is better to have no edit summary, than to have an edit summary which falsely accuses someone of misrepresentation. As for personal attacks, well, I never accused anyone of fraud. K.Bog 06:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
What's with the "again"? I hadn't reverted you previously. Pointing out that you're misrepresenting the source here isn't a personal attack. I note that even in the above you're ignoring the material on how Woodward was planning to counter the Argentine ships if they evaded the subs on page 116. The British official history also takes a different tack, stating simply that "The Argentine surface fleet was not a major concern [to the British], other than the sea-launched version of Excocet it carried", especially as the British knew that most of its ships were in poor condition and its leadership wasn't well prepared for fighting a major campaign (pp. 75-77). In his memoirs Woodward also notes that he was concerned about attacks from the Argentine ships (especially as he'd successfully attacked an American carrier using a broadly comparable British ship in a training exercise), but also discusses how he planned to counter them. You can't simply say that the British thought that the Argentine fleet was comparable to their own, as this isn't the case, or discuss it without noting that the British had prepared responses. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was other users and I mistook you for them so please forgive the mistake. I do not pretend that Woodward did not have a plan to counter the Argentine ships, but that doesn't contradict what I had written. The Argentine fleet was a concern, so I included it so that readers would get a fuller appreciation of the problems faced by British planners. I never set out to discuss the British plans; I only wrote about the problems they faced. Those are two vertically separate domains and just because I only wrote about one of them doesn't mean I misrepresented. As for the British official history, well sure, that seems basically correct. The ship-to-ship Exocets were a major concern to the British, and that's that. I will rewrite the section to include a nod to Woodward's plans, because apparently that's what it takes for me to be allowed to add material without the entire edit being reverted. K.Bog 07:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss the proposed wording here first. And read the British official history rather than cherry pick the bits of what I said about it which fit into the narrative you want to include (check out page 76 for example). Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Why are you playing this silly game of accusing me of "cherrypicking" merely because I didn't acknowledge every single word that you quoted? I read your entire quote, and I pointed out that even your own quote backed up the main idea of what I had written. Or are you just pre-emptively accusing me before I even edit the article? No, you can fix the article yourself, if you're that hellbent on misrepresenting and insulting those who disagree with you. Rest assured that I won't create a false consensus by enlisting fellow editors to engage in a dispute. K.Bog 08:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably because you are cherry-picking and you didn't write that. You removed reference to the air threat, changing it to text that stated the surface threat was of primary concern. The source you've quoted showed there was some concern at the modern weapons on some ARA ships eg Exocet but that the Royal Navy was confident that it could beat that threat. As with most sources, it relates a primary concern was the disparity in air power and lack of AEW. That was the piece removed by yourself. The only person insulting anyone here is you, calling people "arm chair generals" or the personal attack suggesting I went to Nick to "win an edit war". No, I went to an admin regarding an editor behaving disruptively and abusing sources. You've now had two editors telling you politely you're incorrect and adding your own conclusions that are WP:OR and WP:SYN. I strongly suggest you consider that before continuing in disruptive manner. WCMemail 12:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I wrote different things in the article at different times after re-reading the source, so I'm not sure what you're even referring to by saying "you are cherry-picking". Just because I made a mistake the first time doesn't give you a reason to continuously assume bad faith. It is clear that the British were in fact concerned by Argentine surface ships, and there is no reason to keep that information out of the article when it is explicitly supported by both the official history and Hastings & Jenkins. Just because the RN had plans doesn't mean they were confident and unconcerned from the outset - claiming otherwise seems just like original research to me. If you want an accurate section, then we can write what the British plans were, instead of refusing to acknowledge that it was an issue in the first place. Nothing in my last revision was original research or personal conclusions, I had written that both were of concern to the British, yet it gets reverted nonetheless as if I hadn't changed anything because Nick-D called it misrepresentation without noticing that I had already changed the wording to accurately represent the source. Nick-D wrongly accused me of cherrypicking from what he said about the official history, and that's what I was addressing. K.Bog 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Now you claim I am "exaggerating" for writing exactly what the source said. "The British were also concerned by the Argentine surface fleet" isn't an exaggeration, it's directly in line with the source, as per my above my above excerpts. No one has demonstrated that the British were unconcerned by Argentine ships. I don't understand what the problem is when I modified the text to suit Nick's concerns. Why don't you clarify what text you are concerned about? K.Bog 01:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim, you are exaggerating what the source says. It isn't inline with what the source says. The source stresses the threat posed by the Argentina Air force. It doesn't actually state they were concerned about the surface threat - for example it was dismissed out of hand by some officer who didn't think they'd leave port. You take one comment out of context to present it as a definitive conclusion that the source itself doesn't make. In fact, you're now becoming obsessive to the point of being disruptive to keep returning here to force your edit into the article, which you compound by continuing with accusations of bad faith. I don't actually have to keep responding to you in talk, I've made the point already and demanding that I can't change your edit unless I respond to you in talk is bullshit. We're done here. WCMemail 23:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: You know I made several excerpts from the book, not just one comment, and it was to indicate the general conclusion which is well supported by the text. But you try to claim that just because one officer dismissed it, that the British weren't concerned! So you're doing the same thing that you accuse me of doing. And then you accuse me of continuing accusations of bad faith, but I don't know what you're even referring to. I just said that you should pay attention to the talk page when there is a dispute, because I responded to you after you reverted but you did not acknowledge. That isn't an accusation of bad faith. But you resort to calling me disruptive and obsessive when I am clearly being neither of those things - after forgetting about it for three weeks, I revisited the material as per your and Nick's concerns, as honestly as I could despite your accusations of bad faith and fraud; rewrote the edit, fixed the article, and asked what you were concerned about; it's puzzling how this could justify such insults. Anyway, when you made your point previously you were referring to a different edit with different material, so (now that I rewrote the material to fit your prior concerns) you don't get to assume that the discussion is over. Therefore, of course I can ask that you participate in reasonable discussion if you wish to be a part of the editing process. But you just demonstrate an unwillingness to be reasonable or constructive, so you call my statement "bullshit" and decide to quit the moment that I engage with your concerns. Not an admirable way of going about things. K.Bog 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Argentine Air Force criticized after sinking U.K. ship.

I believe I remember an incident from the news during the war concerning the Argentine Air Force sinking a U.K. ship. I was only 10 y/o at the time so forgive me if my little kid memory is not correct. I seem to recall that the U.K. ship was a troop transport and the U.K. and U.S. governments criticized the Argentine Air Force for engaging a target that couldn't defend itself, even though it was a legitimate target. Later in life while in the U.S. Army, I discussed this with an Argentine First Sergeant while we were part of Cabañas '97. He was a veteran of the Falklands War and he informed me that the pilots gave (a) warning pass(es) before engaging. Does anyone else remember or know of this?

On a totally different subject (I apologize to everyone. I know this isn't the right place to ask this but I don't think there is a "right" place.) I use my iPhone 5s as my internet. I have an extremely frustrating time getting the WP discussion page to scroll while attempting to post. Anyone else have this problem? Can anyone direct me to where I could properly even ask this question or get an answer? Thank you and again, I apologize. (I will delete this question if asked but please someone direct me.) Solri89 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:HMS Sheffield (D80) I've already tried to explain this is nonsense to this editor. WCMemail 15:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? You talking about the iPhone problem? Which editor? Does he/she know how to fix the problem? How do I get in contact with this person? Thanks. Solri89 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. I'm the editor! (Sorry, but I'm not a "WP Pro" as you imply you are.) So I gather it means you are referring to the thing you keep throwing you're unverified opinion on. I keep telling you that you are probably correct and my little kid memory is probably mistaken. Only problem is you continue to throw out unverified opinions and implied insults. Funny thing is that I just read your WP philosophy. Talk about bad apples. Now that we have that settled I ask you return to courtesy and verify the information that you insist is nonsense. It may be, I just ask for you to verify. If you can't verify, then no problem, just shut up. Thank you. Solri89 (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article about the U.S. involvement in the war.

Unless I missed it, where is it? Solri89 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been waiting a VERY LONG TIME to say this. I just checked. The CIA finally released the files so it's declassified. http://theunhivedmind.com/wordpress/britain-won-the-falklands-war-aided-by-the-u-s-cia-files-reveal/ As an American, this absolutely disgusted me when I learned about how the U.S. gave satellite intelligence to the U.K. in violation of one of our own most important doctrines: The Monroe Doctrine. But I don't see anything about it in this article. I believe it definitely (to cleanse the stain on our soul) should be added. Btw, from discussion with Argentine soldiers back in '97, this was common knowledge for them. It pained me to have to deny any knowledge of the subject to them because as a true American with knowledge and understanding of our history, and as a uniformed service member at the time, my conscience was kicking me to apologize. Reagan was a great president and friend of Thatcher and the U.K. is our closest ally but that was wrong. Solri89 (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I should add that the Argentine soldiers I met back then, especially the one who was a Vet from that war, who questioned me about it in the first place, were still extremely bitter about that. Solri89 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Before you go about adding any of this to the article you will need to find some reliable sources to back it up. The Unhived Mind is nowhere near good enough. - Nick Thorne talk 05:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

They aren't the only ones who had that article. There are plenty. They were just the first one I found. But I'll put it in (and yes, without my opinion) if no one else does. But the main point was I FINALLY got all that off my conscience. Solri89 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I would ask though that someone with more WP experience and better editing skills add this in the article. It'd be appreciated. Solri89 (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

At the moment US materiel support for the war, such as missiles, and the possible loan of a warship, is in the article under "Position of third part countries". GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem with that article, is though sensationally written as if this was new information, spectacularly missed the point that all of it was already in the public domain. And its wrong in one major respect, its frequently asserted that the US retasked satellites to spy on Argentina. This is in fact not true, the UK did request assistance but the US declined to retask from their primary mission of spying on the USSR. The assistance that the US provided is already covered in a level of detail commensurate with an overview article. So personally I'd decline to act on your request, since its already covered. Please note that generally whilst newspapers are considered reliable sources, they are considered less reliable than books or academic work since their reputation for fact checking is poor. The example you've provided being a case in point; its claims it was new information revealed but wasn't and makes claims about satellite intelligence known to be untrue. WCMemail 15:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Mr.(s) WCM, you are so wrong. The U.S. did supply satellite Intel to the U.K. Unfortunately, to access all the decl'ed Intel I've learned you must go to the Washington National Archives. Although there are news reports stating what they say (beyond unhivedmind) as in the following excerpt from http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/us-CIAfalklands.asp

"...The US had no satellite over the South Atlantic at the outbreak of the war and took some time to reposition one. Observation conditions were less than perfect, with the southern hemisphere moving into winter, so the CIA analyses of 28 May of images over Port Stanley and southern Argentina may be the earliest they got. Even then they note problems with cloud cover. These photographs showed increased defensive preparations around Port Stanley, while a series of images of mainland military installations in north and south of the country showed the Argentine navy safely tied up in port, aircraft carrier, submarines and all. Given that signals intelligence was available, apparently in some abundance, it is unlikely on this showing that satellite intelligence played anything like as significant a role in the war. Many, of course, thought otherwise at the time. A State Department telegram of 4 May shows that the Embassy in Buenos Aires was unable to kill the story that a US satellite had given the British the position of the General Belgrano, whereas the British Official History of the Falklands War, by Lawrence Freedman (vol.2, p285) credibly explains that it was an intercepted and decrypted signal from Admiral Lombardo late on 1 May that showed the British that the Argentine navy was planning a coordinated strike against the Task Force the following day, information that led directly to the decision to sink the ship, which had first been found when the British nuclear submarine south of the islands got a sonar trace of the Argentine tanker sent to refuel it. One cannot safely assume that the signals intelligence came from the US side to the British either: we had our own formidable listening and decrypting capability, and it was only the day before the crucial signal that Inman was telling his colleagures that the US had been locked out. ..."

I've allowed people to infer what one of my MOS's was in the military. So I know it to be true. Also, it doesn't matter that the info was already out there, I knew that. But it was classified. So I had to keep my mouth shut. Now the CIA has finally released the info about the satellites so I can finally say my peace. As far as disseminating classified information the news source could have been The Smallville Express from Tinytown, Anystate. It's out there so I can finally talk about it. The U.S. violated the Monroe Doctrine. I know the Doctrine is not law, it's one of the core principals of our nation that we should always uphold. As should the U.K., since it was they who enforced the Doctrine when it was first introduced. We just can't (ok, shouldn't) dismiss it when it's inconvenient. If you can't understand, do a query to find the information yourself. If you want to remain ignorant, then don't. You'll find the original link I provided is NOT the only source, it was just the first one I found. What I have not found "out there" is the whole full story, I've learned some Intel has been redacted, which is a shame. So I must infer it's still classified. Generally sir/ma'am, political intelligence is decl'ed after 30 years (my day - now I see its 25 years through CREST) plus a review to determine its sensitivity. Strategic intelligence is decl'ed after 50 years plus review. As in the 90's we learned a plethora of info about WWII. Top Secret (codeword) intel is decl'ed only on OADR. Sir/Ma'am, (I refer to WCM) I'm sorry, but I know what I'm talking about and its apparent you wish to deceive yourself and there is nothing I can do about that. Solri89 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett - You are correct. There is some mention of U.S. involvement in this article and I did see that. I was referring to the satellite Intel the U.S. provided the U.K. I should have phrased my title statement better. Sorry about that and thank you for pointing it out. Solri89 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess "notforum" means it's time to update. ...Update added. Thanks all. But I don't know how to add the link to the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website. Some assistance please. Thank you. Solri89 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

28 May, the British had already landed, any satellite intelligence after that was of limited value - particularly as the weather closed in creating cloud cover. The article you've quoted is incorrect, they took time because they were reluctant to task the satellite onto the South Atlantic. The weather had closed in. Signals intelligence didn't come from the US, the UK deployed its own SIGINT capability, which thanks to British secrecy was revealed until 2013. NOTFORUM simply means that talk pages are for discussing content and sources, not for your WP:OR and WP:SYN. If you wish to discuss what to add based on a source per WP:BRD start on new section with a proposal for an edit. WCMemail 08:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Claims stating that Chile provided England with intelligence information

I would like to point out that these claims are, I think, poorly evidenced but still allowed in the article. I removed one of these claims after checking that both references for this claim were not proper; one cited a non existent page of a book and the other one comes from an original text from an Argentinian website. My edit was quickly reverted and I was told to familiarize myself with WP:RS and that “We don't for example dismiss sources on the basis of nationality as you did”.

I did not dismiss the source based on nationality alone, I say it is a conflict of interest because Argentina state employs resources to officially push their own version of the war on their citizens, by placing official sign roads that read “Falklands are Argentinian”, for example.

I also have a couple of things to point out about the only reference itself.

  1. it is a context-less extract, there is no telling of what the original article was, and alone it does not constitute an article itself
  2. it lacks author, who wrote it? when?
  3. no location is specified
  4. only one automated web clawler and two small sites reference to it, not even the Argentinian newspaper itself has a reference to it.

If we compare these points to WP:RS where it textually says: “Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.”, I say that this reference is at least unreliable.

I suspect such “article” remains in the Argentinian site for the sole purpose of maintaining these claims in Wikipedia. Why aren't there any other more reliable sources to these claims?

--Stacknue (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well assistance with intelligence information from Chile is actually well known. The article is actually an interview so would considered a primary source WP:PRIMARY, which is not to say primary sources can be used; they can but only with caution. Clarin is a well known newspaper in Argentina and whilst newspapers aren't preferred as a sources, they can be used. However, its also backed up by Lawrence Freedman's "Official History of the Falkland War", which I have a copy of. This confirms it. That pretty much satisfies me as far as WP:RS and WP:V, since its academic source, published by a publisher with a reputation for fact checking, compiled by a noted historian and a WP:SECONDARY source. WCMemail 19:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
May you please update that reference so it points to the relevant page and paragraph?
--Stacknue (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
It already does. The whole page is discussing the role of Chile. WCMemail 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Nick you also have a copy of Freedman. Would you mind confirming p.397 is in the book and deals with the assistance provided by Chile. Regards, WCMemail 21:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The chapter on Chile in the 2nd edition discusses Britain donating a "powerful radar" to Chile, and receiving unspecified forms of early warning intelligence on Argentine air movements, but doesn't explicitly say that Chile was passing on early warning radar information (which, given the geography and distances involved, would have been difficult and probably not even possible). Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/us-CIAfalklands.asp

It goes under Argentine Invasion: Position of third party countries. Just after the following paragraph. I can't do it through my phone.

The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. Solri89 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Who wrote that page on the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website? NebY (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head Neby, I've tried to tell the guy politely his own theories are not suitable content. The actual source says:
I've tried telling him that the US refused to retask their satellites from NATO duties, by the time it did happen the war was nearly over and satellite intelligence played no role. His main source seems to be himself, he is claiming to be an intelligence officer with access to classified material, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
He seems to be ignoring my suggestion that he should be proposing an edit in talk and getting a consensus first. WCMemail 23:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Still so missing the point WCM huh? Like I've stated to you numerous numerous types. It does not matter if the Intel was useless. (Of which it was not) What matters is they did it and offered it. I understand neby's confusion as he is new to this conversation but you? I ask again for someone to add the link. Thank you. Solri89 (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And I've ignored nothing. I've complied with all requests to find a "better" reliable source. How can anyone possibly believe, especially a Brit or a Commonwealth Nationer, that the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website is not reliable. That website is getting its information straight from the National Archives. I find it disingenuous on your part that you are attempting to allude that this was not already discussed. You, at first, swore up and down that the U.S. did not provide this support. I showed you the truth and now your saying they did but it was worthless. Can't have it both ways buddy. Either they did or didn't and you've already conceded that they have, that everything I've been saying is true. Solri89 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to discuss this with you on your WP page but I guess since you had no public forum there you decided to ignore the conversation. Plus it does not matter that I do know what I know and I never said I was an officer. What matters is that the CIA has finally decl'ed the Intel and that there is reliable sources. Margaret Thatchers was the best and in no way could be challenged as reliable (I also found it on Washington Post and a few others) Since it seems obvious you are a Brit or a CN'er I figured I'd use the link that I did. Face the truth already. It happened. It's published. Both U.S. and U.K. sources say so. Solri89 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

i have no problem continuing to discuss this issue with anyone but I'll state I won't even read anymore posts from WCM as he seems highly disingenuous and for some reason only wants to bury the truth. I also have no problem rewording "and satellite intelligence" to whatever the reliable sources state at this time. If anyone is interested in what I know, get to me on my talk page. I just ask you leave a message here that you have done so that I know to check. I'll state what I can say but I will not violate the national secrets oath I took. And should you not believe that I did have the clearance, I will supply the non-classified paperwork that shows I did have a TS(CW) clearance. So that "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" people cannot mislead you. Solri89 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence Freedman states in the British official history of the war that the US provided the UK with satellite images on only a single occasion during the war - of South Georgia a week after it was invaded (page 241 of volume 2). Interestingly enough, they also provided Argentina with LANDSAT photos of the Falklands region during the war, though they were militarily useless (pages 388-390). I agree that the Thatcher Foundation website cannot be assumed to be reliable without information on who wrote the analysis (whose obvious grammatical errors and clunky wording implies that the author was not an expert on this topic and/or that the foundation does not engage in proper editing processes). More specifically, it doesn't actually say that the US provided satellite photos to the British - only that they were used in internal CIA reports. If the material here is included, it can't just be as a blunt statement that satellite intel was provided as this only seems to have occurred once. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
First rule about being in intelligence is; you do not talk about being in intelligence. I might have been just a Tom but even I know that. So no, I don't believe you. WCMemail 08:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D! You just provided another source for what I've been saying! To give you a quick background of this discussion: The U.S. as you correctly point out did provide the Intel/reports/photos (chose whichever you want) in violation of our own Monroe Doctrine. Yes, I agree the wording in the Thatcher article could have been written better. But now with your source that's totally irrelevant. As far as helping Argentina, that had nothing to do with the original intent to update this WP article. Although, we can include that as well. I do understand the Doctrine is not law. But ideals, especially one that has been used over and over to justify numerous actions for almost 200 years, cannot just be thrown out merely because they are inconvenient at the moment. Technically, because of the Doctrine, the U.S. should have provided military assistance to Argentina the second they kicked the British off them islands. Now, that's not realistic and would have been bad the whole world around so we should have stayed out of it altogether. Giving weapons, promising use of a warship is one thing. (It could've been later said that the U.K. could've used them for other purposes (as well)). Providing Intel, whether it was useless or not, is another and blatantly violated the Doctrine. It's time it's added, especially now that it's been declassified. Solri89 (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I know I said I'd ignore you but I can't help this one. Fight club references? Hahahaha!! The fact I worked Intel and my clearance are matters of public record! I wasn't a spy! I was a 98G1LCXK3. That's Army Military Intelligence, Czech Linguist approved for field station duty and trained in battlefront Intel equipment. Since you dared scorn my honor I'll say this: You just keep making yourself look less credible my friend. Solri89 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Wee Curry Monster#Link to Falklands war Link to the discussion on my talk page, you asked about editing on an IPhone. I don't have a clue as I don't use Apple products. Security clearances simply aren't a matter of public record FYI. Did you enjoy Arizona? WCMemail 10:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, now that three different people here all agree that the U.S. did provide (I'll compromise and just say) Intel to the U.K. (Whether it's believed it was useless or not) can we update the article? We can use whichever rs link. Doesn't matter to me. I am also flexible on the wording as long as the gist of "U.S. provided Intel to U.K." is there. Seems the best compromise would be just to add "and Intelligence" to the end of the above referenced paragraph. Intelligence in this context could be one report, one photo or the whole library. We don't have to get into it that far. Everyone agreed? Solri89 (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Such an inclusion on the basis of a single instance would be WP:UNDUE and - without weight or qualification - misleading to the reader. You appear to be arguing that "it's time it's added" because it "blatantly violated the Doctrine". Such editing to prove a point breaches one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, as further described in the WP:SOAPBOX section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and elsewhere.NebY (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree. WCMemail 14:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the Doctrine was my opinion. (This is the talk page). I never said that part should be added. But I can admit when I've been defeated. Anyway, all someone has to do is read theses talk posts. So everyone have a good day! WCM got a question for you in your talk page, and no hard feelings my friend. Solri89 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, the only material support the US supplied Britain with was some later model improved Sidewinder missiles that were subsequently carried by the Sea Harriers.
The US was in something of a difficult situation in having to chose between two 'allies' and for most of the build-up to the Task Force arriving had to be seen to not be supporting either side. At the time Al Haig was attempting to mediate between the two opposing governments and so the US had to appear impartial. Ronald Reagan had publicly supported Galtieri's government for some time before the Invasion due to its stance against Communism and IIRC although extremely annoyed by Galtieri's rather rash act, he could not be seen to have to do an 'about face' and publicly come down on the side of Thatcher whether he actually wished to or not.
Caspar Weinberger was firmly on the UK's side, as was Haig (who was also extremely annoyed at Argentina's government), and the former did his best to provide the UK with as much support as he could behind the scenes. It emerged some years later that he had offered the UK the use of a US light carrier should it be required. The perceived view in the Whitehouse and Pentagon was that Argentina was going to 'get its ass kicked' and that Galtieri's government was going to fall as a result. The question was how long to wait before coming down firmly (and publicly) on the side of the UK. Despite this view Reagan's government via Haig did their best to try and give Galtieri a way out that would keep his government in power, but he was intransigent.
The Cold War was in full-swing at the time and Reagan had to bear in mind that a key strategic factor in US defence policy was the planned deployment of cruise missiles in the UK, and which were already controversial in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

British victory, but continued Argentinian claim

Britain won the war, but accepted that Argentina continued to claim the Falklands. This is an aspect that should be elaborated. What happened after the islands were reconquered, and why did the British government accept Argentina continued to claim its territory? US pressure? Was it ever discussed attacking mainland Argentina to force the country to give up its claim? The aftermath of the war section is of limited help, there needs to be some "closure" section so its clear how and why the war ended.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


why did the British government accept Argentina continued to claim its territory? This simply means that Britains position after the war was along the lines of 'ok we won, but we understand you are still going to claim ownership' it isn't that the claim was given any weight, Britain knows Argentina has no legitimate claim on the territory, but has to accept that Argentina will nevertheless still keep making the claim.2A02:C7D:2BEA:7D00:2156:3C04:84FD:2B13 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The British could not do anything about the claim; they recognized nothing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Technically Batmacumba the UK liberated the islands from conquest, not reconquered. Mabuska (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Despite the conflict, Argentina still have claims on the Falklands. This can't be disputed. The international community has to accept a claim whether legal or not. Both claims on the territory are legitimate by international law. This is why it's disputed. The aftermath should be discussed elsewhere or create a new section based on facts and not conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.225.86 (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that the text is unacceptable, in the form that it took when the RfC was opened. There also seems to be consensus that, if it were rewritten in such a way as to cite sufficient reliable sources, and if it were presented with due weight, it might be worth including. Therefore, someone should probably write a new version in such a way that it meets the concerns editors have expressed in the RfC; but the material should not be reinstated in its previous form. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Material claiming that a source of intelligence information was Russian satellite data intercepted by a Norwegian listening station has been included in the article. I suggest there a number of problems with this:

1. It is only covered in media outlets, with reference to a single TV report and a report on the TV show itself; effectively the same source. I cannot find reference to it in any other WP:SECONDARY source. Whilst we can look to a media report as a source, this isn't encouraged where it is the only source of data. We also look to other sources that are considered more reliable. I would suggest the current reference is inadequate.

2. Coverage in this article is disproportionate, it certainly doesn't merit two paragraphs.

3. The sensationalist terms used in the edit are completely inappropriate, with the suggestion is was somehow "vital" and let the British know where the Argentine navy was at all times. This contradicts just about every source known on the conflict, which details the problems the British had in locating the Argentine carrier. In any case the Argentine fleet withdrew to port after the sinking of the Belgrano and played no role in the conflict.

It has been removed on this basis several times, on each occasion removal was reverted with the comment "it is cited" "disagree with removal" but as far as I can see these discrepancies have not been addressed. I suggest that on the basis laid out above, this is very much WP:FRINGE material, the coverage here is disproportionate and it should be removed. WCMemail 20:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree - A single TV source, not corroborated elsewhere, isn't enough. Remove it entirely. (Hohum @) 20:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The Norwegian public broadcaster's story looks credible to me. I agree that the material referenced to it in the article was too long and over-stated the value of this information (the Google Translate version of the story says the intelligence was "fantastic valuable", not "vital"). A sentence on the topic - perhaps noting that the claims are not confirmed - seems worthwhile. The claim in the story that the information let the British monitor the location of Argentine ships in real time is highly unlikely though - unless the Soviets had tracking devices on the Argentine ships, this doesn't seem physically possible using the stated means. Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep It's covered in Bård Wormdal. Spionbasen. ISBN 9788253038223., along with much more coverage of Fauske II and SvalSat. The location incidentally is obviously valuable because of its convenience for downloading from polar orbiting satellites generally and also its proximity to the footprint for Soviet satellites aiming at their own polar downlink.
The USMC staff college seem to see the Norwegian TV program as worthy of citing http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA602142 Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The USMC refers to the exact same source cited here, the book you cited is by the same journalist in the TV programme [2] effectively it all comes down to the single source. WCMemail 23:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
But I can read the book, I can't find a stream of the TV program. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
And? Are you disputing that its effectively the same source? WCMemail 06:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
But if the source is good, what's the problem? It's not like there's a large literature on the Norwegian intelligence services and their activities, and it's entirely possible that Norwegian-language sources would have been overlooked by English language writers. The report on the Norwegian state broadcaster should be a reliable source. The book was published by the Norwegian firm Pax Forlag which seems like a small scale but probably-credible outfit from the limited English-language information on it I can find - Google Books has a list of its other works here, but the titles are in Norwegian. The author appears to be an independent journalist, with all the pluses and minuses that entails though. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
All of the information comes from the one source, a single independent journalist. As you note above some of the claims made in the source seem to be highly exaggerated eg the claim that the Norwegians enabled real time monitoring of Argentine ships. It certainly didn't warrant the two superlative laden paragraphs dedicated to it (a sentence at most) but given the doubts expressed about the reliability of claims made I'd suggest removal is best. WCMemail 11:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not real time, it's per orbit. It also relied on the Soviets tasking their satellite to keep looking at the Falklands (which was pretty likely anyway, mostly as they wanted to study British forces in action).
BTW, SvalSat and TrollSat are both based heavily on Wormdal's books and they're both GAs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm unfamiliar with the topic so wouldn't consider I could say yah or nay. That said IF it is retained it needs to be covered sparingly IOT give it due weight only (two paras does seem too much in this case). Also, unless it is verified and its significance confirmed by an objective source/s I think it would need to be qualified substantially. (Perhaps in the manner Nick mentions above?) Anotherclown (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove - unless we find more than one source (and of course, books, tv shows etc. quoting the same source don't really count, it's just mass hysteria from one shout). This wasn't a war-winning factor, even if true. The RN had a lot of difficulties finding those pesky Argies - and vice versa - and there was no secret Russian magic that I ever heard of in the thirty five years since. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove A single not very notable source, or heavily prune and state as attributed claim. That famous (talkative?) figure 'A high ranking British military source', gets a whole paragraph at present. Hasn't the MoD fired him yet? Pincrete (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Reduce or remove - This information needs to be presented with due weight, if presented at all. It would be nice if someone who spoke Norwegian could look for a Norwegian source to verify this, but for now I say cut it down to a sentence or two. It certainly wasn't "vital" information. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove At this point it just does not carry sufficient source weight. If another, independent mention can be found, it may justify inclusion. But it needs trimming even if found. Yngvadottir, do you speak Norwegian? Pretty please :) we may need a little translation help. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: Quickly, have to go to work soon ... Yes, I can read it a bit. I see that Andy Dingley's reference is to a Master's thesis and that it cites the same NRK programme. NRK is a solid source, but looking at the archive of the source, I see that it hedges as to exactly how important the information was: "Hvorvidt krysseren ble senket på grunnlag av opplysningene som ble gitt fra Norge kan ingen i dag si med sikkerhet." - "How far the cruiser [General Belgrano] was sunk based on information that was obtained from Norway, no one can say with certainty today." The article does say that the programme used information from several central sources in the Norwegian defence forces, and does contain the single statement from the "high-ranking British military source" that characterises the intelligence as "fantastically useful". Out of time for now, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hugely useful comment. Seriously appreciate you taking the time to assist Yngvadottir! Simon Irondome (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Follow-up. OK, I'm back from work and have made a search. There is another version of the NRK programme summary online, which doesn't require using an archive: here. Some press reports from the time are also still available: Verdens Gang and Bergens Tidende. There's a trail of references to the information as fact, particularly among anti-war and anti-NATO activists, often coupling it with later similar assistance in the Gulf War: e.g.: 1, 2, 3. However, I was unable to find information in Google Books, in any language—which may just mean Google won't show it to me, or hasn't digitised the relevant material. I did not find anything that doesn't go back to that TV documentary. Also, what I believe is the most prestigious paper in Norway, Aftenposten, now has its archives sewn up tight to non-subscribers, so it is possible I can't see an analysis from them. And the Norwegian Wikipedia let me down by not having an article on the Fauske listening posts; I was hoping to look at their sources. But I don't find any sign anywhere of the information having been cast into doubt. My feeling is: it should be mentioned briefly as something that was presented by this programme. Also, I'm going to ping Arsenikk and Geschichte, both native speakers and both, I believe, with relevant subscriptions; they may well be able to find the information I can't, either corroborating or not, and unlike mine, their translations will be unimpeachable :-) By the way, are you all aware that the matter is covered, somewhat dramatically, at Aftermath of the Falklands War? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
We should probably clean that up as well. I remember now, when we split the article up as it got too big we put it in there, it was then reintroduced back here later. WCMemail 18:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment per pinged request I have looked a bit into this case. I have watched the documentary in question, which can be seen here. The part about Fauske starts at 15:36 and from 17:30 there is extensive interviews with Matthew Aid in English. The documentary does not cite any sources, nor does it specify if it has been able to verify the information from multiple, independent and reliable sources. The documentary producers have not issued a methodology report to SKUP, which is common but in no way required for a documentary to be credible. I presume anonymous sources have to be used due to the nature of the intelligence facility. The Norwegian Intelligence Service does not comment on any of its activities from its various listening posts, which doesn't help either way. I checked with the newspaper archive Atekst, which has 14 articles on the connection between the Falklands War and Fauske. Although occurring in multiple large and reliable newspapers, all of these are referring back to the discoveries made in the Brennpunkt program. The documentary indicates that information gathered via Fauske from Soviet satellites could have been used to locate General Belgrano and contribute to its sinking. The interest of the documentary is in my view twofold. The first is telling tales of what the Norwegian Intelligence Service is up to through a few dramatic examples. Secondly it shows how the intelligence exchanges with the US and other NATO countries has made Norway an indirect participant in several wars, previously not known to the public. I can borrow the book Spionbasen from the library on Monday and can then see if Wormdal can shed addition methodological light on the issue. Arsenikk (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I interpret that there are three issues which need to be addressed: 1) Did the intelligence intercept take place? 2) If so, did the information contribute sigificantly to the sinking of the General 3) Is this factoid relevant for inclusion in this article? 1) Wormdal, who wrote Spionbasen, was not involved in the Brennpunkt program. The book mentions the Falklands issue in two paragraphs (pp. 131–132). The first mentions the General Belgrano issue, referenced to the Brennpunkt program and "Dutch intelligence". It is not specified if Wormdal is referring to his own contacts in Dutch intelligence, or if this was the basis for the Brennpunkt documentary. The second factoid, not mentioned in Brennpunkt and referenced solely to "Dutch intelligence", is that Soviet satellites picked up emergency positioning beacons used by British troops, with signals captured by Fauske 2 and resulting in the distressed being picked up. Matthew Aid comments on this in the documentary as well, but instead pointing to the need for Soviet "assistance" during the Gulf War to locate downed American pilots. Although a lot of the media outcry is of less importance, one of particular interest is this article in Forsvarets Forum (no). This is the official magazine of the Norwegian Armed Forces. Although it is editorially independent and cites the Brennpunkt program, it shows the high esteem the program is held with. Every newspaper and other media which recommunicates the findings in the documentary are evaluating the credibility of the documentary and finding it sufficiently reliable. This in itself strengthens the credibility, because many people have evaluated it as reliable. However, we are still not left with two independent and reliable sources which verify this information, so it is difficult to establish the issue as a positively known fact. 2) The documentary states that its source states that the British received the position of the General Belgrano. The same is the case in Spionbasen, where it is (citing "Dutch intelligence") stated that the information was sent to Britain. Neither source states anything about if the British used or needed this source to locate the Argentinian ship. Arsenikk (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Technically illiterate questions, only directly related to the RfC. Would not simple human-intelligence tell the UK that the Belgrano had sailed with a full load of soldiers? Would such sophisticated technology as Fauske really be needed to locate something as large as the Belgrano and its 'protectors'? Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think the question was of the fact of her leaving port, with all the major units of the AN, but more of a question of locating her position while at sea. It still seems like yesterday (to me anyway) but we sometimes forget how long ago 82 was in terms of technology we now take for granted, especially in the military sphere. Cheers. Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but of course knowing something has sailed, and its probable destination, has always been a huge advantage. I just wasn't sure how implausible the assumption was that the UK would even need this info. Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The issue wasn't one of detecting Belgrano, the passive sonar on the Churchill class submarine could do so at significant ranges. All of the Argentine warships deployed were detected by submarines. The carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2) for example. was detected by HMS Splendid (S106) but not attacked as she couldn't visually identify the target. The carrier group then ran over a region of shallow water where Splendid could not follow and she lost track. There was concern with the Conqueror could also lose the Belgrano if she ran over the shallow Burdwood bank. So in answer to the original question, no the listening station at Fauske wouldn't have been needed to find Belgrano. However, the geology of the South Atlantic could frustrate the ability of submarines to maintain a track. Contact was lost with the carrier at a critical juncture that made the British Task Force vulnerable - and with good signals intelligence the British knew exactly what had been planned. The Argentines used commercial swiss encryption machines made by the company Crypto AG, so GCHQ was adept at decrypting their signals traffic in near real time. WCMemail 23:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou for the clarification. What is still not clear to me is what role Fauske is alleged to have played, since most sources credit GCHQ with the ability to decode. I am wondering whether the claim is that Norway simply continued data-sharing with the UK. If so, the present text is not so much an extraordinary claim, as a rather mundane claim phrased in an extraordinary manner, ie UK continued to get data from sources with which it had pre-existing arrangements, which may have been very useful to the UK. The RfC question remains of course what weight to give to this source, but in the absence of clear info as to the nature of the info/data, (beyond being told by an 'anon' that it was 'incredibly vital') I am even less inclined to give much weight to it. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced claims about the thinking of British representatives at the UN

I added a "citation needed" tag in the middle of the following text in the Sinking of HMS Sheffield section:

That said, the British did not expect the Argentinians to accept this final package. It was a gamble, the calculation being that Argentina would reject it and hence be seen to be the unreasonable party[citation needed], reinforcing in the eyes of the world the legitimacy of subsequent British action.

Irondome wanted to discuss it, so here I am. This is a straightforward case of claims that need to be sourced. Wikipedia isn't the place for people to give their own interpretation of historical events. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor; perhaps someone else can provide links to the relevant Wikipedia policy article(s). I can find them with a little research, if needed. jej1997 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Freedman does comment that the British didn't expect the Argentines to accept the final package. However, the real cause of the failure of talks was the Argentine position hardened at a point where the British had compromised so much they could go no further. I don't believe any of the content in Freedman would support such a cynical view as that above. It does appear to be opinion rather than fact and I would suggest the text is modified to reflect what is in the Official Histories. WCMemail 15:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok WCM. Do you want to work on it with me Jej1997? Give us something to do. Wee, what is the best available source online that you would recommend for restructuring? Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
There isn't a good source online I'm afraid, the best coverage is in Freedman's Official Histories. Its covered in depth in Chapter 25. WCMemail 19:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Without a verifiable and reliable source such an obviously OR and opinionated statement has no purpose on this site. Mabuska (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the entire passage, back to the point of the Charles Moore/Thatcher cite. Apart from the excised portions problematic assertions, it was a stylistically clumsy bolt on. I hope this edit meets with consensus. We can re-add any additional material at leisure from R/S. The section is better of without it frankly, as it is now neutral and ready for sober and brief well sourced additions, if it indeed needed at all in an arguably over-inflated section about the sinking of the Sheffield. I think it has due attention paid to it now. Would actually be better in the diplomacy section as a better fit imo. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. jej1997 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Proxy War

Based on the article List of proxy wars a category has been added to this article, which I do not believe belongs here. The article referenced is very poorly written and seems to be based on the WP:OR of a number of wikipedia editors who've applied their own criteria. I can't see anyone classifying the Falklands War as a proxy war. After removing the category, I note it was reverted immediately so I'm starting the talk page discussion per WP:BRD. WCMemail 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely don't see how it's a proxy war. —DIY Editor (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
After looking at List of proxy wars I can see why this is included. It fits with the overall list. However I am concerned that the criteria for inclusion in the list are vague. Is there mere mention of something possibly being a proxy war enough to include items in a list of things known to be proxy wars? This is a concern with the entire list, not just the inclusion of the Falklands war. —DIY Editor (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree, its criteria is so vague as to make the list pretty much useless. WCMemail 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree. I have never seen anyone call Falklands a proxy war. The definition at [List of Proxy wars]] works poorly--the cites are to non-RS. and ignores statements like "The Soviet representative on the Security Council disappointed Argentina by abstaining on the resolution calling for the withdrawal of their forces from the Falkland Islands." (support would be a veto) Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So your preferred solution would be to completely disregard the sources and leave the underpopulated category Proxy wars empty? Despite being created back in 2014, it only included 8 articles. Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My preferred solution is not to fill a category with unrelated articles, it makes categories useless. BTW to note three editors already disagree with you. WCMemail 21:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a good topic, but a lousy article. So much is beyond dubious and certainly unsourced (the Bay of Pigs supported by NATO?). Nor was the Falklands a proxy war - who was the UK proxying for? Covert support from countries such as Chile and Norway is real enough, but hardly proxying. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the only valid reason for specifying that something is a proxy war is a consensus among experts (in international relations). It looks like it would be a huge amount of work to go through List of proxy wars or Category:Proxy wars and review each for correct sources. This article's inclusion we can readily look at though. —DIY Editor (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The category is currently based on the list, so only the list would have to be checked. Dimadick (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A search for "falklands "proxy war" -wikipedia" found little. The foremost and only obvious direct reference (apparently RS book) that turned up said explicitly that the Falklands was not a proxy war. Based on that and consensus among editors here, it seems like the Falklands war should be removed from the category and list. —DIY Editor (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've also never seen a claim that the Falklands War was a "proxy war". Given that it was the direct result of a long-running territorial dispute and fought only between the two claimants, it clearly wouldn't qualify. I've removed this from the list. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit

The statement "Ewen Southby-Tailyour gave a direct order for the men to leave the ship and go to the beach. The order was ignored." is unsourced. I added a citation needed tag, pointing out that a claim of insubordination is a serious one and must be appropriately sourced. The tag was removed with the somewhat amusing motivation "rv well known incident, uncontroversial fact". If the fact is well known and uncontroversial it should be easy to source it. The unsourced claims of a WP editor (User:Wee_Curry_Monster in this case) have zero probatory value. I am going to re-instate the citation needed tag. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@84.73.134.206: It's not unreasonable to request a source for this. I didn't see anything obvious on google. Southby-Tailyour is an author so maybe he's said something, although that's not a secondary source. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Requesting a reliable source for this very serious claim of insubordination is precisely what I did by adding a citation needed tag. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Instead of demanding that others spoon feed you, why not instead get of your lazy backside and do some research? It will take a work of moments to do a bit of research to find that Ewan Southby-Tailor did tell the senior officers of the Welsh Guards to get their men off the ship but they refused opting to wait to be moved. The idea of insubordination is entirely your own invention, both officers were of equal rank. Or don't bother and leave it for someone else to do it for you. Do you really think tagging on articles is useful? I'll give you a clue, his book is called "Reasons in Writing", And yes as noted in ny edit summary the incident is well known and uncontroversial but don't worry I'll do what you demand and add a completely unnecessary citation to satisfy your bloody ego. Just wait till Thursday when I return. In the mean time feel free to improve the encyclopedia by actually writing an article. WCMemail 22:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If the episode were true, both the disobeying soldiers and the hapless officer whose orders were blatantly disobeyed would bear a serious blemish. Unless rock-solid evidence (far more solid than the rambling recollections of an involved party) can be provided, the claim amounts to slander on WP. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
You really need to look up WP:OR and WP:SYN, you've invented this tale of insubordination. I take that to be a refusal to do your own research. So you really think slapping tags on articles demanding others fix stuff is helping build n encyclopedia? WCMemail 08:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The likely invented tale of insubordination ("The order was ignored") is currently on the WP page. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher in Lead

Just removed the addition of Margaret Thatcher in the lead, I think this smacks of lead fixation. Bringing it here to discuss. WCMemail 15:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Good evening Wee Curry Monster, according to many sources the Falklands War (led by Thatcher) was a pivotal event in British history, it changed the course of the world, and both Thatcher and the war had an indisputable effect during the end of the Cold War..take a look...Thatcher and the Falklands, How Margaret Thatcher's Falklands gamble paid off and the influence of Thatcher in the Cold War, In my point of view, this is enough evidence to include Thatcher in the Lead, she had the main role behind the conflict and became the "winner" after the war finished. In my view Thatcher used the war only as a vehicle to increase her low popularity at the time, she didn't care about all the innocents killed, children, and the deep crisis in Argentina after the conflict; despite all that, she "played" the main role during the conflict, and Thatcher should be included in the Lead section.FinalPoint1988 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
You're relying on newspapers and whilst not unreliable tabloid newspapers, wikipedia would prefer academic sources for claims of this nature. You're also writing from your POV, your own opinion and looking for sources to back you up. This isn't enough evidence as you put it to include Thatcher in the lead and at least one person, me, disagrees with you and considers it lede fixation. Now per WP:BRD you're supposed to discuss this and reach a consensus view, not steam roller your personal opinions straight back into the article. I would appreciate a self-revert. In addition, please do not ping me when you reply, if I start a talk page discussion I will check back. WCMemail 21:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Your request will be attended per WP:CIVIL-WP:BRD and 'cause I see that you are not a disruptive editor. I see your point, and I found these academic/reliable sources The Politics of the Thatcher Revolution: An Interpretation of British Politics 1979-1990, Government Popularity and the Falklands War: A Reassessment (Cambridge), Margaret Thatcher: From grocer’s daughter to Iron Lady The life of Margaret Thatcher – timeline, Margaret Thatcher: A Life and Legacy (Oxford University Press), all of them explain the Importance and Pivotal Role of Thatcher during the Falklands War, the conflict can't be understood without her actions, and her absence from the lead content is something Incomprehensible; but we need more opinions to reach a consensus, by the way..what is your reason for which you think Thatcher shouldn't be included in the Lead section and your opinion of those academic articles. Greets and happy editing FinalPoint1988 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The Falklands War didn't change the course of world history as you have claimed. Can I ask whether you have the sources you just listed? I looked at the first none and it doesn't back up the claims you were making. I can't see the second. The BBC article doesn't back up the edit you wished to make, it does note rather simplistically " As a result her popularity with the public soared and she gained respect and strength abroad." Neither does the Guardian article "British forces recapture Port Stanley. Argentina surrenders in what is seen as a resounding victory for Margaret Thatcher, confirming her "Iron Lady" nickname." And funny neither does your final cite. I don't agree that the conflict can't be understood by her actions. Decisions were taken collectively by the War Cabinet, she did not operate in a presidential role as many imagine and the article has always rather neglected that. I don't see her absence from the lead as incongruous, the lead should reflect the article content summarising the subject, the impact on Thatcher's career is effectively tangential to the focus of the article. It may belong on the Margaret Thatcher article but not here. WCMemail 00:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Without the Falklands War, the permanence/re-election of Thatcher in 1983 as Prime Minister wouldn't have been possible, therefore, the well-known team Reagan-Thatcher, (the greatest leaders in the Western World and one of the responsibles of the Iron Courtain collapse during the late 80s-early 90s) would have never existed, well, on the other hand, the Falkland War lead cites "...the Conservative Party was re-elected in 1983..." as a consequence of the victory in the Islands, actually, Thatcher was the leader of the party, in fact she was re-elected, she obtained all the benefits of the Falklands victory, and since such victory against Argentina in the summer of 1982, she became one of the most important Heads of State during the past century..well those are our POVs, we need more opinions on the matter to reach consensus...FinalPoint1988 (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
A lot of people would actually disagree with you about the re-election of Thatcher in 1983. Her ratings had begun to improve as the economy began to recover and the Labour party committed electoral suicide with its lurch to the left under Michael Foot. She would have re-elected even without the Falklands factor. Nor was the UK that important in terms of the Iron Curtain collapse, the US simply outspent the Soviet Union to the point it could no longer maintain its military regime. Anyway, seems about time we allowed others to comment eh? WCMemail 09:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

add in the Gang of Four drawing elements of labour party to the newly created Social Democrats in alliance with Liberals affecting the moderate left vote. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can speculate as to what caused the 1983 general election result until the cows come home. It is clear that the Falklands were a factor, but as WCM and Graeme note it's far from obvious - even somewhat fanciful - to suggest that "without the Falklands War, the permanence/re-election of Thatcher in 1983 as Prime Minister wouldn't have been possible".

I also note that the UK has a parliamentary form of government, not a presidential form of government. It is easy to project modern leader-driven politics on to previous elections when this is not necessarily accurate. I do not accept that "actually, Thatcher was the leader of the party, in fact she was re-elected", i.e. that it was Thatcher and not the Conservative government that was re-elected. The sources you cite do not imply such a position.

I see a lot of arguments in favour of inclusion based on POV here, but little hard fact. FinalPoint1988 argues "In my view Thatcher used the war only as a vehicle to increase her low popularity at the time, she didn't care about all the innocents killed, children, and the deep crisis in Argentina after the conflict", with an edit summary that accuses her of "genocide". The fact that the user makes such claims, that are so obviously nonsensical to anyone with even the vaguest handle on the facts, significantly damages his/her credibility in my eyes.

Because I have seen no argument that I find convincing to include this text, I am inclined to oppose inclusion. This is lede fixation. Kahastok talk 11:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, finally a consensus is reached, although I disagree with her exclusion from lead...Why include the Conservative Party re-election in the lede and not the Thatcher/Prime Minister re-election...absurd in my POV, it was not a question of "lede fixation", it was a matter of including the most important factors involved in the conflict??, on the other hand, (just a POV in that part of the world).. for Argentines, Thatcher was responsible of one of the most heinous crimes against humanity, most of the Argentine casualties were underage soldiers, besides housewives and children were killed..(you can find such information through Google Argentina) BBC Asesina de Argentinos, Murió una asesina de argentinos: Margaret Thatcher, Thatcher supports Pinochet, as you can see, "Not so obviously nonsensical"; well, anyway, I will respect the consensus FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

FinalPoint, let me get this right? Argentina invaded another countries lands and caused this war. They then sent underage soliders to engage in the war they caused. These underage soliders were killed by their opponents, and this fact is Thatchers fault!! Way to go, that is some made up trail of events there. Plus the deep crisis in argentian after the war was also her fault? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but I would love you to tell us all please?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Adding other countries as combatants

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

I agree. Something the literature on the war (including the very detailed British official history) makes clear is that all the countries who supported Argentina and the UK took great care to avoid becoming a combatant, or even being seen as being aligned too closely with the one side. An odd feature of the war was that most of Argentina's supporters had good relations with the UK, and vice versa, and wanted to maintain this situation to the extent possible. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Concur with WCM and Nick-D. Another point is that Cuba was listed under Material Support. We have an article which Material support redirects to, and there is no way MartinKassemJ120's addition of Cuba was remotely relevant to that. Moriori (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
For much of the conflict the US (i.e., in the person of Al Haig) was actively trying to persuade the Argentinians to accept mediation talks with the UK as the UK Task Force headed south, and so other countries tried not to come down in support of either side.
The term 'combatants' refers to fighting and AFAICS only the UK and Argentina actually did any fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Check quote from Ward

Quoting in the references section from Ward, Nigel (2000). Sea harrier over the Falklands Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-35542-6. the article states Ward 2000, pp. 247–48: "Propaganda was, of course, used later to try to justify these missions: 'The Mirage IIIs were redrawn from Southern Argentina to Buenos Aires to add to the defences there following the Vulcan raids on the islands.'Could someone with access to this book confirm that the word redrawn is used here, rather than withdrawn which would seem more likely. - Nick Thorne talk 02:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I've certainly seen it quoted as "redrawn" elsewhere. "The Mirage IIIs were redrawn from Southern Argentina to Buenos Aires to add to the defences there following the Vulcan raids on the islands. Apparently, the logic behind this statement was that if the Vulcan could hit Port Stanley, that Buenos Aires was well within range as well and was vulnerable to similar attacks. I never went along with that baloney. A lone Vulcan or two running into attack Buenos Aires without fighter support would have been shot to hell in quick time." Nigel Ward, who suffers from a bad case of 'cap-badge rivalry', a serious sin in the armed forces, is not particularly literate or intelligent. However, he concedes that Black Buck forced the Argentines to detain fighters for the defence of Buenos Aires in case of Vulcan attacks. The psychological purpose of Black Buck was to indicate to the enemy, 'You are not out of range.' Ward, and the article, are wrong to suggest that the damage caused by Black Buck 1 to the Stanley runway was trivial. It certainly wasn't. As Rowland White notes in Vulcan 607 p.363, 'At the runway's mid-point, the southern third of its 130-foot width had been obliterated. The full extent of the damage was later measured by JARIC [Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre, RAF Brampton, Cambs] at 115 feet across and 84 feet deep, and although it was hastily filled, the repair was botched and the patched-up surface never stopped subsiding. The crater put an end to any remaining hopes Argentine forces had of using the runway for their fast jets. And while Hercules transports continued to use the strip until the end of the war, the damage complicated their task to the extent that, one one occasion, one of the big transports nearly crashed on take-off.' The physical objective of Black Buck 1 was to poke a 1,000-pounder into the mid-point of the runway, and it succeeded perfectly. If you are trying to conduct air operations, even with C-130s designed for rough-field use, an 84-foot-deep crater in the middle of your runway is a headache. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Just checked, its withdrawn not redrawn. It wasn't British propaganda, the Argentine Air Force stated they redeployed Mirage III to defend BA. I'll fix the quote. WCMemail 14:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up Nick Thorne I checked my library and found some dubious claims in there. I've rewritten the para to reflect what the sources actually say. WCMemail 15:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The sole point of the Black Buck operations was to prove a point to the Argentinian government whilst not escalating the conflict further. In this, it was completely successful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.138 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Public opinion in the UK

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The war divided public opinion in the UK almost as much as the Suez Crisis had in 1956. Why is there no mention of this? (86.172.137.251 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC))

If you can find a reputable source which says that you are welcome to add it Lyndaship (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Asa Briggs mentioned it in his 1994 book on the Social History of England, p. 319. (86.172.137.251 (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC))
I think this was reverted per WP:FACT vs WP:OPINION. It is one person's opinion, which to be honest doesn't resonate with me. As I recall public opinion was very much in favour of the Government's action. WCMemail 13:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see the statement by Asa Briggs, in context, if anyone can quote it or point to a free online source, because it seems at odds with the reality of what was happening at the time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that the war had widespread public support, though not universal support. Surely there were opinion polls, etc, of public views at the time which historians and political scientists have drawn on to discuss this topic. 22:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The war was opposed by much of the Labour Party, the SDP, the Liberals, the Church of England, the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, and many working class people. It was seen as a distraction by a hugely unpopular government, as well as a manufactured conflict since Thatcher had sent Nicholas Ridley to discuss the transfer of sovereignty with Argentina in 1980-81. The Falkland islanders had been stripped of their British citizenship, and the Royal Navy warship had been withdrawn from the South Atlantic. Briggs mentions that the Suez Crisis divided public opinion even more than the Falklands War was to a quarter of a century later. Most people could not understand why we were going to war over a couple of remote islands 8,000 miles away, especially when we were having huge cuts to public pending domestically. (86.161.73.248 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC))

Your comment about what Briggs wrote, if correct, is more about Suez than the Falklands. The political situation at the time of the invasion has been downplayed by many people who focus too much on the campaign and what that did for Mrs Thatcher's popularity. I am not convinced though that the war was opposed to the extent you suggest. Foot and Owen gave total support to the proposed Task Force, as can be seen by reading the 3 April 1982 debate in the House. I do think though that this article needs slight adjustment to reflect the political situation and public mood in Britain at the time of the invasion, which was not the same as at the end. That topic though would better suit another article that deals just with that and in this article about the war itself, it only warrants mention in a subsection. After nearly 40 years, some revisionism of the way the war is viewed is probably needed to put the war in context. Some sources to confirm the alleged widespread opposition are essential though. There were public opinion polls carried out by the BBC and others during the campaign and they would be useful to see. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

"The Falkland islanders had been stripped of their British citizenship" - do you have a source for this?
Never mind - British Nationality Act 1981 reduced their citizenship rights, rather than revoke them completely. Also, if the "Warship" referred to was HMS Endurance, it's hardly a warship, it was scheduled for retirement, but the war began before it was. (Hohum @) 20:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually there was widespread support in the UK for the Government's response as many had had enough of the UK being 'f*****d-about by tin-pot' foreign governments. For many in the UK, coming so soon after Operation Nimrod, the invasion was the last straw.
... the Endurance was one of the many ships due to be scrapped under John Nott's 1981 Defence Review and this was one of the events that convinced Galtieri's Government that the UK would no longer defend the Falklands. In 1980 prior to Nott's axe the Navy had around 300 ships, ships which would have come in very handy later in 1982. Thus the shine of 'Thatcher's victory' was rather tarnished by having allowed it all to occur in the first place, with only Lord Carrington - who was in no way to blame - being the only one in government with the decency to resign over the incident. Nott himself was to famously walk-out on interviewer Robin Day during a live edition of Newsnight after Day suggested that people might wonder at the long term wisdom of such drastic cuts made by what they might consider a 'here today, and gone tomorrow' politician. Which, of course, is exactly what Nott was.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.138 (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Foot later tried to distance himself from his initial supportive position. Many people in the UK only supported the war once the fighting began. (86.159.61.202 (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC))
Foot's Labour Party were resolutely anti-conflict and this is the stance they took publicly however they either supported the government in every important House vote or they abstained. Until the Task Force arrived in the South Atlantic there was considerable doubt as to whether further fighting would occur - there had already been fighting by the Royal Marines during the invasion - or whether Haig's negotiations might bear fruit. Foot was a decent, humane man but he and his party completely misjudged the situation, and UK pubic opinion, a result of paying too much attention to their own political activists, and not enough to 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.138 (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

We are going off track here. The question is can anybody produce a RS which states The war divided public opinion in the UK Lyndaship (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The answer to that is probably no, for the simple reason that it didn't divide public opinion, except insofar as the Far-Left were against it, which judging by their conspicuous lack of electoral success in the following years displayed them to be very much in the minority, and which illustrated how far leftwards the Labour Party had moved since the more moderate governments of James Callaghan and Harold Wilson, and also that by moving so far to the Left no-one in their right mind was ever going to elect them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.138 (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually there were far more people voting against the Conservatives in 1983, but the SDP split the opposition vote. I have never met anyone who could understand why we were going to war for a couple of remote islands that the UK had been trying to give back to Argentina. Most people saw the conflict as manufactured by an incredibly unpopular government that shared many of the same values as the Argentine military junta. (81.147.63.138 (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC))
Is there an RS anywhere in the future for all this? If not it's all just speculation and OR. - Nick Thorne talk 23:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Briggs is a RS. The war was opposed by most of the Left, not just the "far Left". Many people were expecting the US to bankrupt sterling as it had during the Suez Crisis. (86.183.112.121 (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC))
Could you quote exactly what Briggs asserts on p.319 please? Lyndaship (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This is bordering on off-topic by what sounds like a couple of IP editors drafting a non-referenced first year politics essay. Please stop speculating and provide reliable sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, the is a source named but all that can be used for is to state that in the opinion of X this divided public opinion, having looked at the source it doesn't give a source or data upon which that opinion is based. So whilst it could be used to source an opinion of someone no one has ever heard off, I would strongly object to that being added as irrelevant. See WP:TPG, the discussion here is veering way beyond the purpose of a talk page. If a suitable source isn't found it should be shut down. WCMemail 15:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
CMNT - it's also worth pointing out that by default opposition political parties will be against the actions of the current ruling party. That's the way it is, and it's always been like that all across the globe. Often they'll oppose even if they are secretly in agreement or would support a given stance. Unless you have absolute 100% agreement on any decision you're always going to be able to say "split opinion" or some derivative of that. The question is - are there reliable sources that claim the split was large enough to warrant inclusion in the article? I'm not sure they are. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Briggs was a noted historian and the sentence was a statement of fact, not his opinion. The Falklands War strongly divided public opinion in the UK, at least until the outcome was no longer in doubt. There were even celebrations of the dead British soldiers in one part of the UK. (81.159.82.116 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC))

I propose we end this discussion as no RS has been produced to support the assertion "The war divided public opinion in the UK" beyond a claim that it appears in one book for which no actual quote has been provided despite repeated requests Lyndaship (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is a "civilian sailor"?

The infobox and text mention "16 Argentine civilian sailors killed". What is a civilian sailor? Needs ref/explanation. Moriori (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Re Moriori's edit page comment today - I changed the detail in the infobox, removing the distinction between military on non-military of the Argentine casualties, as too detailed for the infobox, ie total Argentine deaths was enough. I kept the 3 Falkland islanders separate because they were not connected in any way with the UK military and are better described as Falkland Islanders than British anyway. I did not think a reply was needed here because I took my change as a reply, but I overlooked the subsection further down. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Should be Falklands Conflict not war.

Technically under international law this was a conflict not a war, neither side made any formal declaration of war.

See the talk page archives - this has been discussed multiple times before. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Where in international law does it say people cannot call a war a war unless it is declared as such by one of the parties? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyway we should call it what reliable sources call it, and they all call it the Falklands War. Anyway while a declaration of was wasn't formally made, a declaration of a war zone was. Plus almost no one declares war anymore, it's pretty much defunct under modern UN regulations. Canterbury Tail talk 16:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The Most reliable source in this regard, the National Archive of the UK Government calls it the Falklands+Conflict in hundreds of documents. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=Falklands+Conflict
The British Legion call it the Falklands Conflict as well : https://www.falklandswar.org.uk/
The UN call it the Falklands (Malvinas) Dispute. https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/PRS-2018-CRP.5%20(Falkland%20Islands%20(Malvinas)).pdf
So yes lets use reliable sources.
Way to misrepresent your references. The national archives also uses the Falklands War in thousands of documents. The second one is purely someone's blog, and has no connection to the British Legion other than an advertising graphic for donations. And I'm presuming you didn't notice the very glaring and obvious fact that it's called Falklandswar,org.uk and advertises a book front and centre about Falklands War. Incidentally the British Legion site has multiple references to Falklands War. And lets now talk about the cherry picking of the UN site. The UN site search uses Falklands Conflict precisely once, and Falklands War in 7 documents. The document you link to doesn't use the phase Falklands Conflict even once and anyway is a delivered statement by a Falkland Islands MLA not the UN. Yes it mentions the word conflict, precisely once (probably because yes it was a conflict), but not Falklands Conflict (it's clear the speaker is trying to be diplomatic), so I've no idea what point you're trying to prove with that. Canterbury Tail talk 01:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

The map is not appropriate for the infobox. It is very one-sided and distinctly gung-ho. It was removed a few weeks ago and not put back until recently because, according to the editor, the replacement image was also used further down. Owing to the nature of the conflict I cannot think of one image that neatly captures the whole war so a six-photo image set does seem to be a good idea. I notice the one used is balanced with three UK and three Argentina. I personally think there is room for discussion on which photos to use though. It was unusual to see such editing from the first edit of an IP. I think the map would fit much better in the 'Task Force' section. IMO, Antelope should be changed for another UK linked image, such as the well known yomping with the union flag image. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Apart from being less informative than the map, the top left image is of atrocious quality, the top right image is colourised from a black and white image, the text describing the British frigate is incomprehensible (it appears to be a google translation from the Spanish wikipedia article), and the bottom right image is not of Argentinian soldiers being repatriated, it is of prisoners of war still in the Falkands. So, in all, less than ideal. (Hohum @) 21:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the collage is not ideal as it currently stands and needs some work, but that is easily done. The map is informative about only one thing, the Task Force route, making it very non-informative about the war as a whole. The map is also as excessively large as the collage is small. The map is original research, which although acceptable for a file image, any map must not distort or change fact and so must be treated with care. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's easily changed, have at it. Otherwise please abide by WP:BRD and put it back how it was. (Hohum @) 00:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The Captions for the collage in the first infobox in the upper right is all out of order. It says 'clockwise from left', and on mobile the order is wrong at the last two, and on desktop in all the browsers I have checked it is a vertical line of pictures and clockwise doesn't make sense and the captions are even worse in order. I don't know how best to fix this. 2601:681:4C00:BA1:94C7:EFF8:8E2A:6730 (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The Spanish version [3] is using the same infobox collage which is better laid out - l to r, t to b. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

How to fix the presentation of images in the infobox?

A week ago I amended a caption beneath images in the infobox so that it read logically. The caption has since been edited so that it currently says there are three rows of images when clearly there are only two. I have asked at the Help Desk for formatting suggestion.@AirshipJungleman29: Wikipedia:Help Desk#How do we overcome this formatting anomaly? Moriori (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize my edit by looking for bad excuses to erase the ongoing UK-Argentina-Vatican reconciliation process

It is not okay to erase reliable and neutral information. This is ongoing event which may result in a major papal visit to both Argentina and the Falklands.JoeScarce (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Focusing on "may result". Lets see if it does, otherwise it's just supposition. (Hohum @) 21:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It is oK to remove an edit giving undue prominence. There is nothing that will come of this, Argentina having just elected a hard-core Peronist Government vowing to ramp up the rhetoric over the Falklands. Get of your high horse. WCMemail 01:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Get off your high horse and quit throwing temper tantrums. Now I'm reading the Argentine military was involved in the transition of the statues.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-falklands-statue/britain-gives-argentina-back-madonna-statue-taken-from-falklands-idUSKBN1X91EIJoeScarce (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have gone to some effort to explain to you why multiple editors are reverting you. I'll make it explicit one last time, don't expect me to extend the courtesy further. A) your edit wasn't supported by the cite you gave, B) you synthesised an edit based on recent events giving it WP:UNDUE prominence, C) you're ignoring the points of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARTEST or at best seriously misunderstanding them and D) continuing to personally attack other editors who have been more than patient with you. WCMemail 01:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Southern Thule

I have seen this claim a couple of times recently. Was ST invaded and under control of Argentina back in 1977, or were they just pushing their luck by putting people, military or not, on the island and raising a flag? In my view it is the latter, something the UK was not happy about but did not take it as a military invasion. Therefore in 1982 at the end of the main war, all the UK did was remove the people from ST and blew up their building. However, the UK did use troops to do this, so I realise there is an alternative argument. Opinions? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this is - almost certainly - massively undue weight. If we start talking about Southern Thule when we're supposed to be discussing the big-picture facts of the conflict, we are missing the point.
On the wider point, I think it's very easy to massively overstate what happened using grand words with expansive meanings like "invasion" and "occupation". When we say Southern Thule, we mean a couple of specks of land hundreds of miles from the nearest settlement. This is not Operation Overlord. Kahastok talk 22:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Southern Thule was clearly under Argentine control prior to the war, and as a result of the war fell back to British control. It was the only piece of territory that effectively changed hands as a result of the war. Virtually all pages regarding military conflicts have the change in territorial changes parameter, some for even smaller pieces of territory than what we're talking about here. See 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes for an example.XavierGreen (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Not quite, Southern Thule was British Territory but the FCO had vetoed any affirmative action over evicting the trespassing Argentine garrison to avoid escalating any conflict. You could argue and I have seen some commentators argue that inaction over Southern Thule was one of the factors that led the Argentines to conclude the British wouldn't take any action. WCMemail 19:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
It was claimed by both Britian and Argentina pre-war but under the control of the Argentines, post war it reverted to British control.XavierGreen (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
It was under occupation by a clandestinely implanted garrison, which the British had chosen not to evict. It was the second time the Argentines had done so, having been evicted previously. Arguing they were "in control" is stretching a point and as Kahastok notes massively undue weight. About the only point is that British inaction in part convinced the Argentine junta they could invade and the British would not react. WCMemail 08:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Its not "stretching" anything, the Argentines were literally in control of Southern Thule before the war and no longer were after it. The means by which they obtained control are irrelevant as to whether or not there was a change in "territorial control" as a result of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say it was claimed by both Britain and Argentina. Britain did not claim them - it had ownership, as evidenced by international law: Argentina claimed ownership due to a perceived error in international law. You cannot treat both parties as equals in the same position. The SSI were British islands claimed by Argentina. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@XavierGreen, in what way were they in control? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Argentine military literally had physical territorial control over the island via its garrison there.XavierGreen (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean how did they exercise that control, what did they do to show they were in control? Just being there is not a sign of control. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean just being there isn't a sign of control, physically occupying a territory is the primary requisite for asserting sovereignty over a piece of territory. The mere fact that Argentines were militarily occupying the island constituted their control of the island.

I meant just what I said. Please be precise and read your linked wiki evidence more carefully. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

For Southern Thule to have been 'under the control of Argentina' the people occupying the islands would have had to have held some official Argentinian government position, e.g, a military officer, postmaster, etc., Merely having some civilian people present does not constitute 'control' by a state, for fairly obvious reasons.
IIRC, in that same year - 1977 - James Callaghan's government sent a submarine down south to discourage any Argentinian provocation. I think it may have been HMS Superb but I may be mis-remembering the actual ship involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Failed Diplomacy

I'm somewhat concerned about this new section. Argentina maintains that the UN has directed the UK hand sovereignty over to it, this section (particularly with the selective quote from a draft agreement) does rather imply that to be the case even if it does not say so. It also refers to the islanders stymieing agreement, which is really rather over simplifying the matter. It's also missing the rather important fact that the FCO saw the islands as a nuisance, so whilst confident of British sovereignty, they were prepared to give the islands away (ignoring the islanders completely). I was tempted to simply revert but bringing it here for discussion. WCMemail 08:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I expect the section to be altered and improved. My main point was to get something inserted to give balance to the 'prelude' section, which is overly weighted to the Galteri junta. I realise that what I have put in is far from perfect but I thought it better to put something in that can be amended rather than have a debate first that might get bogged down, resulting in nothing being inserted. I am sorry if the quote I used does give the impression that the UN had told the UK to hand over sovereignty - I did not read it that way. The point I tried to make was that the UK govts were trying to get rid of the Falklands problem, an overlooked and perhaps uncomfortable fact that is seemingly often lost in the post war rhetoric. The diplomatic maneuvering from 1965 onwards also show that this invasion option was not exclusively an option open Galtieri and co. I initially thought of editing the main article about the lead up to the war, but I found that article to be pretty much in need of a substantial overhaul first, so I chose to start with the Falklands War article. A problem with doing that is that I have left out a lot of detail because the FW section should really be a summary of what is in the main article. For example, I thought it would become overly detailed if we brought in the FIC and the heavy lobbying that took place. Anyway, what and how do you, or anyone else, think this section should be altered? I hope nobody thinks the post 1965 diplomacy should be omitted entirely. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I've edited it to a much condensed version of events, which hopefully gives a more balanced overview. I agree that the FCO manoeuvrings really should be spelled out but also that the FCO was limited in manoeuvre by the fact two sides were implacably in opposition. WCMemail 10:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned about something more specific: I'm sure that Nicholas (rather than 'Nick', in this context) was never Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary from the election of Margaret Thatcher's first government in 1979, until he resigned following and because of the Argentinian invasion of the islands, was Peter Carrington. Jmrichardson (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falklands_War/Archive_13&oldid=1136340735"