Talk:Falklands War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falklands War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Former FA Falklands War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article Milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

On Template:March 19 selected anniversaries

Archive of previous talk.

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Falklands War as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] 'Cultural impacts' and 'artistic treatments' sections

These two sections seem to largely cover the same ground and repeat each other - maybe they should be merged? quercus robur 08:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] swapped articles

Have swapped over the content of the passage on 'cultural impacts' from the main Falklands War article with the main article on Cultural impact of the Falklands War, as the former seemed to be far more extensive and thorough. Copyediting of both articles is probably still needed though.. quercus robur 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair enough to shorten the main article by simply linking to the new one, isn't it? I'll clean it out, feel free to revert if you don't think that's reasonable, but the information looks duplicated to me. --BadWolf42 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me, I was tempted to do the same myself... quercus robur 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Righto. I'll merge the Argentinian bits in its separate section into it too. --BadWolf42 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a duplication, because I migrated the information via cut and paste when I created the daughter article. I've now summarized the section. -Fsotrain09 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this required in any way? Why shouldn't this be in the daughter article? If it should, why should it be duplicated? --BadWolf42 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The summary, you mean? See the content guideline on that. -Fsotrain09 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything there requiring you to have a summary after a spin-off, but I shan't complain if it's wanted and someone's willing to keep them synchronised. --BadWolf42 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Andrew as Exocet decoy?

Prince Andrew "revealed in an apparently inadvertent admission shortly after the war that he also flew missions as an Exocet missile decoy."

I've heard this story repeated many times, and while I've found a few mentions of the 'fact', I've seen no actual quotes from him or the Royal Navy. Mostly, it's word of mouth, message boards and the like, although the BBC has stated it as if it were fact. For all the proof I've seen so far, it could well have been British tabloid hyperbole that has survived as a related meme. I believe the whole use of helicopter towed Exocet decoys has never been elevated above rumour status anyway.[1]

If anybody here has some authority on the subject, and of course some sources, then please comment/edit. At the least, provide a link to a direct quote from the Prince or the Navy as to his involvement, to elevate it above urban legend and, more relevantly, to secure it's continued inclusion here. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 03:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone claimed using helicopter-towed Exocet decoys, and whilst I've not heard or read a direct quote from him, the use of radar return enhancers does not seem generally disputed. I'll have a quick look through my material and see if I have anything better, but AFAICS, a cite from the BBC is still a cite and, on the face of it, a bloody good one, if anyone can pin down the reference. Does anyone dispute 820 squadron provided radar decoys? If not, then we can clear this up by despecifying the claim. --BadWolf42 22:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the citation from the BBC[2] says: "Famously, he flew as a so-called Exocet decoy to protect warships from missile attack." Famously, and yet the words were seemingly never recorded. The word famously here seems to suggest we all should know, and if we don't know then we're the only one! However, I'm not afraid to admit that I've never once seen a direct quote where he said he ran such missions, and that I've only ever seen reference to it as an established fact as time has moved on. "As you will remember..."[3] etc. Where is the candid admission of inspiring Royal duty? Did the lucky journos present at the gaffe just sit on their mealticket instead of publishing it? Yeah, right. For all the quotation we have he could well have just mentioned the alledged practice and made no claim to actually running such missions himself. It seems very unusual to not be able to find verbatim 'foot-in-mouth disease' quotations from the Royals. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall it was on camera rather than to written journalists, but I too have been unable to find reference to it. I think the employment of of radar return enhancers (towed or otherwise) is not officially acknowledged (despite various companies selling them), so that would make sense. The Prince's own short biography steadfastly avoids mentioning it, despite listing a number of other tasks 820 carried out, therefore I think it probably is fair to remove the claim as unsubstantiated.--BadWolf42 12:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
There used to be something called Chaff(H) or Chaff Helicopter. Rather than being dispensed from the 3inch launcher onboard the chaff foil is unloaded out of a helicopter door. It was used in the 80s and it may be that being referred to. It does mean that the cab is in the air, in the vicinity of the threat weapon, but it's not the cab that is the decoy. As I recall it was intended to be Chaff Charlie or Delta, so used early in an engagement. I can't comment on its efficacy though.ALR 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It was certainly used as a technique (along with ships firing off chaff rockets) on the way down to con the shadowing 707 into thinking that the battle group had the amphibious force with them. Sandy Woodward was consequently a little irritated when the BBC announced they weren't!--BadWolf42 11:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Size

I definitely think, as a third-party observer, that it is time to spin off some of the sections into daughter articles. The "cultural effects in the UK" section looks especially promising as a potential daughter article. Thoughts? -Fsotrain09 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've created Cultural impact of the Falklands War. Now those subsections need summarizing. -Fsotrain09 17:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinking of HMS Sheffield

"Sheffield was deaf to the tell-tale Exocet seeker radar at the time as the ESM equipment on board had been switched off to enable the use of the satellite transceiver. The two systems, due to poor design, interfered and could not be used simultaneously."

Was this really an example of poor design? I'm no engineer, but I would be surprised if it were possible to use a powerful receiver simultaneously with an adjacent powerful transmitter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:BlaiseFEgan (talk • contribs).

Agreed, I don't think in 1982 this was considered poor design and thats quite a bold assertion for an uncited comment. Infact HMS Sheffield was considered to be one of best class of warships in the world at that time. I believe the general consensus is that the events happened in the wrong place at the wrong time as far as the ship was concerned and as a result it was hit badly where as at different time it *might* have survived. But really thats all purely speculation. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say I over-editorialised in that comment, probably by applying modern standards to the 70s ESM design, and therefore the statement should be amended. I shall do this at the next opportunity, if no-one else has. However considering the T42s one of the best classes of warship around at the time is foolhardy, they were distinctly second division, and that's being kind by assuming the second division wasn't empty. Sheffield wasn't the most advanced ship the world had ever seen, but she still should not have been caught with her knickers down, and that's a fact agreed by pretty much everyone involved.--BadWolf42 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, radar and ESM can co-exist, so why not a satellite uplink? I'd be surprised if the sat transmitter were stronger than a T42's search radar. --BadWolf42 11:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The satellite equipment was a rush fit and a new to the Britsh navy in 1982, ESM equipment can coexist with ships onboard transmitters using pulse blanking. However a ships radars operate at a much lower frequency than that of a missile head radar. Therefore it is consevable that the frequency of an Exocet missile head will be close to the frequencies that are used in satelite transmissions. Also pulse blanking a communications channel will not work at the output is continious, with a radar, it spends a large portion of itoperating cycle listening for returning echos.

[edit] Poor spelling edit war by User:Tashtastic

User:Tashtastic is continuing to change uncoordinated to a bizzare and archaic spelling unco-ordinated (twice today as of Sunday 13 August 2006 1800GMT). Here are two (British) dictionary links that cite uncoordinated as correct and do not recognise his perculiar fetish of what is "proper English spelling".

Cambridge Online Dictionary showing coordinated

Same, not recognising archaic spelling

Oxford Concise showing coordinated

Oxford Concise not recognising co-ordinated

It seems he has history with poor spelling edits, and is clearly being bloodyminded. Recommended courses of action? --BadWolf42 18:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're asking for recommended courses of action, my main recommendation would be not to resort to personal attacks as you did in your edit summary here. With the matter at hand, the Collins English Dictionary Complete & Unabridged lists only 'uncoordinated' with no alternative given. It does list both 'coordinate' and 'co-ordinate' but uses the former in all examples. 'Unco-ordinate' is just plain ugly so I'd be inclined to not use it even if dictionaries listed it. But they don't, so get rid of it. Martín (saying/doing) 18:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra datum. As for your main recommendation, whilst personal, it seems quite a fair given the inability to follow the cite links (or at least contest them). Twice. But point taken. --BadWolf42 18:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
He's still at it, offering proof by assertion here.--BadWolf42 11:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd hate to see something so seemingly trivial go to arbitration or mediation. Have you tried to email or message the user in question? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 17:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think he's been overtaken by other proof by assertion mediations he's engaged in, so hopefully we're out of the line of fire. Cheers. --BadWolf42 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major edits 14 Aug 2006

I've made some heavy edits today. To outline them in case anyone wishes to alter/contest them:

  • I've exported all but one line from the Cultural Impacts section to the new article.
  • I've pulled the Impact in Argentina section, hived off most of it to the Cultural impact of the Falklands War and put the remaining Junta collapse paragraph into the Analysis section, where there was an almost identical one.
  • In that Analysis section I've moved the Political to the top as the Junta's collapse was probably the biggest impact of the war.
  • In that Political analysis section, I've thrown out two paragraphs that seemed to be non-political, speculative and hand-waving, and also a bit about Warsaw Pact military planning, which may or may not be related, but surely wasn't political in its normal sense. I've also moved the collapse of the Junta ahead of the re-election of Thatcher, as it's rather more significant and has a markedly more demonstratable connection.
  • Old discussions (no contributions for a couple of weeks, or with an obvious resolution) have been archived to Talk:Falklands War/Archive01.

I hope these aren't too contraversial, and I don't think any cited information has been discarded. Cheers. --BadWolf42 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle for Stanley ?

Its the fisrs time it has been reffered to as that. Its not such a good title. No battle was fought for Stanley because it was surrended. The battles previous to that are important and should not go under that header. Goose Green has its own section why not the others.

I believe it was called:The Fall of Port Stanley in the 80's. Necessary Evil 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. There was hard fighting to deal with the forces, supplied and based upon Stanley, in the defences set in the hills - the best defensive positions - immediately surrounding Stanley. That, to my mind, is correctly called "The Battle for Stanley". Toby Douglass 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POW numbers

In the beginning of the article:United Kingdom - 2 taken prisoner.
57 marines from Naval Party 8901 were prisoners of war after the British surrender April 2nd. Should they be included in United Kingdom......taken prisoner? Does anyone know how many members of the Island's Defence Force that were POWs? On the press photos from April 2nd, there was a man wearing a hunter's gear sitting among the marines. Necessary Evil 21:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading "74 days - An Islander's diary of the Falklands occupation" by John Smith, it seems clear (if not explicitly stated) that members of FIDF were not taken to Argentina along with members of NP 8901. Instead they were returned to their homes. (p32 ff) Jim Whitaker 17:38, 29 December 2006 (GMT)

Please add to the article referencing your sources with a <ref></ref>. Dont worry about making mistakes if you are new as I will fix them, SqueakBox 17:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands instead since I think the material to which the discussion section referred may have been moved there? Thanks for the welcome - I think my edit may need help since I may not have worked out the <ref></ref> tags properly? I have added the book to the references since it seems to complement the others listed. --Jim Whitaker 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trenchfoot

Not sure where to put this. I took an EMT class and one of the instructors said that a significant number of Argentine casualties were from trenchfoot, resulting in many amputations. He said this was due to failures of command, with some troops not changing their socks for most of the duration of the conflict. He had a disgusting slide show of the injuries so I think it is probably true, but I don't have any references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.194.218.58 (talk • contribs).

As ever - we cannot include unreferenced information even if it is true - see WP:Verify. Megapixie 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know, that's why I put it in discussion rather than the article, but thanks for pointing that out and including the links. So who is "we" in this context, are you one of the owners of wikipedia or just someone with a misguided sense of your place in the world?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.194.218.58 (talk • contribs).

Sigh. Just someone who was under the impression we were here to build a free encyclopedia. Megapixie 07:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"sigh" you are also an asshole who writes out "sigh". The reason that I bothered to put this out there (once again, in the discussion page rather than the article) was so that someone like who you aspire to be would chime in with quality info, not so that some asshole like you would direct me to the rules of wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.194.218.58 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Campaign Box

Thought a campaign box would be useful:


Falklands War
Pebble Island – Goose Green – Top Malo House – Mount Harriet – Two Sisters – Mount Longdon – Wireless Ridge – Mount Tumbledown

[edit] A class or B class?

Is this an A class or a B class. It says both at the top and I will remove the one that is wrong. Baseracer 15:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Different projects can have different definitions of what falls in which class. Check the assertions of each wikiproject and change the classification if you see it fit. Mariano(t/c) 09:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

Though officially 258 British died during the conflict, in the Spanish article they cite the Argentine army on a much bigger unofficial number, somehow supported by Germany:

"(1) Según cálculos hechos en la República Federal Alemana, las bajas británicas habrían sumado más de 700 muertos y 1.500 heridos. Teniendo en cuenta que, durante los 3 años de la guerra de Corea, Inglaterra perdió 537 hombres, la simple admisión de 255 muertos en 45 días de operaciones indica el más elevado promedio de bajas por día de combate sufrido por los ingleses desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial."
"(1) Acording the calculation mady by the Federal Republic of Germany, British casualties would have added over 700 dead and 1,500 wonded. Considering that during the 3 years of the War against Korea England lost 537 men, the lone admision of 255 dead in 45 days of operations give the highest rate of casualties per day of combat by English forces since the World War II".

Yet I haven't been able to find any other source for it. Anyone knows zee German language? Mariano(t/c) 10:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the German study calculated that 700 Britons would have died in a high-intensity war like the Falklands War. Normally an attacker should have 2-3 more men than the defender. The Britons attacked a numerical superior foe in most of the land battles. If Pucarás had been dropping napalm at the British ground forces, if Argentine paratroops had been attacking the bridgehead at Port San Carlos, if the weather had been more windy at ARA 25 de Mayo's aborted attack, if the Argentine services had cooperated, if the Argentine bombs had exploded.... — then the British death toll would have been higher.
Argentina admit that UK lost 'only' 255 men in the war, but have taken the loser's privilege of presenting the fact, that it took North Korea a whole three YEARS to kill 537 Britons, while Argentina managed to kill 255 in only 45 DAYS. Necessary Evil 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, napalm was used on occasion, by Pucarás. Toby Douglass 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you need to look at where those losses were, and appreciate that the actions were some 30 years apart. Many of the losses were at sea with survival rates in the cold waters of the winter south atlantic leading to survival times in terms of minutes. In the land environment weapon effect was much greater than that available in Korea etc. It's not a like with like comparison.ALR 15:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, at least 100 from General Belgrano died of Hypothermia, but the sailors of Royal Navy were issued with modern, orange immersion suits. Another aspect regarding cold weather is that several wounded (on land) were 'preserved' by the freezing temperatures, and survived against all odds.
Medical improvement in general since M*A*S*H 4077 does also makes the Korean War/Falklands War comparison stranger.Necessary Evil 18:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the casualty rate at sea, I wouldn't suggest that a once only survival suit would provide much improved survivability in the South Atlantic. It depends on having adequate insulation underneath it and wearing it properly. The suit itself is really only a waterproof covering and is pretty light. It's really to manage the couple of minutes from first entry until one gets into a liferaft where the mass of bodies offers an increased ambient temperature.ALR 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The comparison is, of course, dull. I was pointing to the death toll. Any reference to the German study? By the way, check the wounded/dead ratios of each one; clearly the British were better prepared to treat the wounded. Mariano(t/c) 09:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made an enquiry to the discussion page at the German wikipedia[4]. They should know it.Necessary Evil 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Mariano(t/c) 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

At the Spanish wikipedia [5] Argentine and non-Argentine users are debating the German calculation. The Argentine army's homepage doesn't give a direct reference to the German calculation. Cálculos hechos en Alemania - "calculations done in Germany" sounds like an toothpaste ad with "according to scientific research" with no direct reference. Germany sounds so conveniently neutral, so....
Regards Necessary Evil 10:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2082

In 1984, the secret plans for Operation Overlord were released. 40 years seems like a fair time span to me. But the Falklands War's archives will be released after 100 years. All that secrecy will nurture a lot of myths and conspiracy theories. Why?:

  • To cover up 700 dead Britons?
    • I doubt it, UK can't get 700 families to disappear.
  • To cover up UK's nuclear threat?
    • In a desperate situation, a nuclear power could be using it. Soviet Union wouldn't go to war for Argentina.
  • To cover up clandestine operations from Chile?
    • Very likely.
  • To cover up that HMS Invincible was hit?
    • Why was the Royal Navy so frank about the other ship losses?
    • But according to [6] Naval Airman B. Marsden "died on H.M.S. Invincible and was buried at sea". He wasn't a Sea Harrier pilot or involved in a helicopter crash, so if a member of HMS Invincible dies, the ship could have been attacked!
  • To cover up that French arms have NO-GO enemies? (selfdestruct codes)
    • Possibly.

Necessary Evil 11:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well - I can clear one of those up for you. According to "Falklands Air War" (Highly highly recommended) Airman Brian Marsden was killed on the deck of Invincible on 15 June 1982, when in heavy seas an "aircraft tug" broke free and crushed him against the carriers' Island. My money would be on ops from Chile / spys inside Argentina. Megapixie 12:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
So he didn't even died during the war, no wonder the date of death wasn't published at SAMA82. Necessary Evil 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
as the secret exists, something must be out there. The Chilean Connection was described in detail by Sir Lawrence Freedman but there were another versions of the facts originated in Argentina such: the ship attacked by the Daggers on May 1st just in the beginning of the UK operations was in fact HMS Sheffield and badly damaged. Differences with the real number of SeaHars damaged/shot down on the same day and after. the fact the british sustained these first loses in what they first thought was just a picnic take them to refuse to accept Peru 's President peace plan (when Argentina already do it) deliberating sinking Belgrano out of the war zone to force argentinians to fight showing thatcher desesperate 's decision of go to a war at all costs to clean her internal problems . Also the real role of the US thought all the conflict (deliberately less appraised in favor of the uk strength) maintaining a real air bridge from the US to ascension delivering all kinds of suplies from Sidewinders, Shrikes to fuel and ammunition and last but not least some hints of war crimes carried out by british troops against argentine prisoners (with no firm evidence) Jor70 12:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jor70. Do you know if the Argentine government has imposed a 100-years secrecy on its 1982-war archive? Regards Necessary Evil 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course not, there is a Democracy down there! :) There was a Libro Blanco "white book" released soon after the war that was used on the war trials and military head chiefs (Galtieri, Anaya, .. ) were condened to prision by the armed forces supreme council when democracy was restored under the Alfonsin administration in 1984 Jor70 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Argentina in fact is having trouble facing up to their loss in the conflict. Fabricated stories of Argentinian military successes created by the Junta's propaganda/publicity machine during the war maintain their currency because the mass of people, understandably, emotionally reject what happened; they do not *want* to believe it, and so they choose to believe stories of victory and success. Toby Douglass 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Is there any explanations of the following in Libro Blanco:

  • Why wasn't the air bridge in April used on a few bulldozers to lengthen the Port Stanley runway, instead of 12,000 soldiers. If FAA had deployed high performance jets on the islands, Mirages could have created air superiority, and Skyhawks would have had more than 5 minutes to find their targets AND they could reach the British Task Force East of the islands.
  • Why didn't the junta wait to 1983, when HMS Hermes and the Vulcan bombers were scrapped and HMS Invincible was sold to Australia. ARA would have acquired more exocet missiles and type 209 submarines.
  • Why did ARA redrew ARA 25 de Mayo to port after ARA General Belgrano's loss? The aircraft carrier had plenty of ASW aircraft and ASW helicopters plus six destroyers to protect it from British submarines. Was it because of a nuclear threat to Southern Argentina?
  • Why didn't 80 percent of the Argentine bombs explode? The Argentine air force must have known the performance envelope of the bombs.
  • Why didn't Argentine paratroopers attack the Port San Carlos bridgehead, when most of the British infantry was fighting at Port Stanley?
  • Did the authorities found any trace of SAS in Argentina?
Regards Necessary Evil 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Evil, the Libro blanco should not be confused with the 2000's one, you can find it as "Informe Rattenbach" and the spanish version is here Was done by the military in late 1982 and I think a little too soon. There are not direct answers to yours questions in the report. I can resume you that the april 2 "invasion" (a long dream of Anaya not Galtieri since it was naval ops chief) was launched due the Georgias incident, a war was never imagined by the arg mil who were still negotiating april 23 when the brits retake georgias and they realized how the real situation was (in fact all 2nd april invasion troops had returned to the mainland ) In that moment, last week april, the decision was to fill the islands with a great number of troops , again not for combat but for dissuasion and you need to remember that there was another caotic situation with Chile which Argentina was virtual in a cold war condition since 1978. Chilean armed forces positioned their troops along the southern border forcing ARA maintain the marines brigade in Tierra del Fuego and argentine army southern regiments in Patagoina. About the so comment deployment of combat Jets to Stanley, I personally think they could not operated from there with the brit naval gunfire. pucaras, machis and T-34s had a hard time there and the mirage or a-4 wouldnt made any differences once in the air against the seaharrs if they were still armed just with shafrirs or aim9b againsts the aim9l. for the other questions, I personally think, that the arg armed forces where focusing in those years against an internal enemy not to a foreign war which the last one was 150 years before. Not only the bombs didnt explode ( replaced in late may with some given by the israelis ) but also san luis torpedoes didnt work and the lack of jointness was a vital part that helped the brits too. Jor70 12:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


That answered many questions, since it was last-minute decisions, and not long-time planning. But I still don't understand why ARA 25 de Mayo was redrawn with all her ASW capacity. Since Argentina and Chile share 5.150 km of borderline, a sea war isn't the first thing coming to my mind. The narrow Strait of Magellan is unfit for aircraft carriers, and as far as I know, ARA had fast patrol boats stationed there. ARA 25 de Mayo wasn't that necessary in an eventual Argentine-Chilean war. Some of ARA's destroyers and corvettes were armed with Exocet MM38 missiles (the type hitting HMS Glamorgan) and a helicopter could guide these missiles from a high altitude (like a very high radar mast) toward the British task force. Do you have any idea why ARA redrew from the fighting (except COAN, ARA San Luis and units trapped on the Falklands Islands)? Regards Necessary Evil 14:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


ARA 25 de Mayo was an obsolete World War II era carrier, and was probably unseaworthy. In any case, she was being stalked by several RN nuclear subs, who would have finsihed her off if she came too close to the taskforce. Astrotrain 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
She was part of Task Group 79.1 and WAS seaworthy. She was World War II-vintage, like ARA General Belgrano, but was modernised for jet operations. According to a Salamander book called Modern Naval Warfare from late eighties, the Argentine Task Groups 79.2 (three corvettes) and 79.3 (General Belgrano with escort) were shadowed by RN submarines, but not Task Group 79.1 (25 de Mayo with escort). Royal Navy failed to find ARA Veinticinco de Mayo May 2nd, when her 8 Skyhawks should have carried out a raid on the British Task Force. A sudden loss of wind, made it impossible for the 24 knots of the carrier, to create enough headwinds for the heavily fuel- and bombloaded Skyhawks to take off.
Not quite accurate. Winds dropped; the planes could have taken off with a reduced bombload if the carrier had turned into the wind, but that would have meant sailing directly towards the British; this was something that was not welcome, since the fleets were only about 150 miles apart and British Task Force thoroughly outclassed the Argentinian force. As such, the Argentinians backed off, sailed away, opening the range, with the mission postponed till the next day; but then in the end didn't happen. Toby Douglass 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you believe that the sinking of Belgrano was an eye-opener for the Argentine Navy Command (gee, they really have submarines down here and - gee, ships could be sunk outside MEZ), Astrotrain? Necessary Evil 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it was an eye-opener, but not in the sense you're questioning. The navy knew they were at war and knew it was deadly dangerous. However, none of the crew had been in combat before and the first time a ship is sunk really does ram the message home - and in that sense, I think it was an eye-opener. Toby Douglass 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well fom what I have read she was being stalked by HMS Splendid (although Splendid did not find her). I think that if she was detected then she would have been attacked, and would have been sunk. The 25 de May was of course the main target, as the only Argentine aircraft carrier. However even if she had launched her aircraft- would they have been effective in any attack on the Task Force? The Sea Harriers/Sea Wolf systems would have slaughtered them. And once she lost her aircraft- the carrier would be useless.
Of course maybe the Argentine navy, after Belgrano, released they could not possible compete against a nuclear submarine fleet, and decided to withdraw to save their capital asssets. The British were only really interested in the carrier tho, Splendid did not attack the Hercules when she was spotted off the Argentine coast later in the war. Astrotrain 15:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Argentine High Command didn't seem to have any problem in sacrificing scores of Skyhawks, but the Task Force's lack of AEW might have caught the British with their pants down. I still believe that 25 de Mayo could have mustered a better anti-submarine screen than Belgrano. Belgrano was escorted by two Pacific War veterans, while 25 de Mayo was escorted by two modern type 42 destroyers. Of course Royal Navy knew all about the type 42's blind angles, but ARA also had three modern French build frigates/corvettes (which failed to detect that HMS Spartan was shadowing them) and 25 de Mayo had 6 S-2 Tracker ASW aircraft and 5 H-3 Sea King ASW helicopters deployed. Combined, they stood a better chance than Belgrano.
I just think that it's strange: Admiral Anaya (the navy member of the junta) was most excited about bringing the Malvinas home and Operation Rosario was almost a navy-only operation. It's like he suddenly realised that ships can be lost in a war, and withdrew the navy from the war, abandoning 12,000 teenage soldiers to their fate on the islands.Necessary Evil 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
althought are facts like the us satellites and radio codes given by the chileans that could justify their action I sadly agree. While the air force sacrifice their pilots in an matter that they supposdly did not need to participate according to ARA (at least initially) and the Army give what had available at the time, the navy, main mind of the recuperation, did not risked their ships after the belgrano sinking. If you go to a war you need to accept the consequences, more if the majority of crew of those ships were not conscripts . Thanks God I can assure you that today ARA is very different. Jor70 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You say "if you go to war, you must accept the consequences". But this war was so artifical; the Argentian claim to the Falklands has been deliberately exploited and magnified by the State over the decades prior to the war. In childrens geography textbooks, the Islands were draw much larger than their real size, to make it seem that they were a major loss to the country! And then the Junta, to keep themselves in power, capitalised on what the people had been decieved into believing, started the war, paid for it with the money taken by tax from the people, conscripted the sons of the people to fight, and then got them killed. "If you go to war, you must accept the consequences" - this isn't about that. This is actually about lacking freedom and liberty in your own country, and the consequences that follow from *that*. Toby Douglass 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Prob because losing a ship (especially the sole aircraft carrier) would be a larger psycological blow than the deaths of some soldiers or a few jets. Astrotrain 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't stop thinking of old fashion Honour and Glory. General Manuel Belgrano was one of the founders of Argentina, and it must have been some kind of disgrace for the Argentine junta, to lose a ship with his name. May 25th is the Argentine Independence Day and would have represented the same shame, if it was lost too. At the beginning of World War Two, the German pocket battleship Deutschland was renamed Lützov, because Hitler feared that the loss of a ship with the name Deutschland (Germany) would have a significant negative psychological and propaganda effect. Regards Necessary Evil 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The Brits also kept the Queen Elizabeth 2 well away from the combat area- and didn't even send the Royal Yacht Britannia as a hospital ship- for similar reasons. Astrotrain 23:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Stupid comment, but Argentina's Independence Day is July 9. May 25 is a very important day, however, thus the same concept about shame would apply. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the enlightenment, Sebastian. UK newer cared much about their ANZAC allies - Gallipoli 1915 and anchoring SS Canberra in the hornet's nest in the San Carlos Waters, May 23rd 1982. Necessary Evil 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Driving on the left

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


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

84.70.159.152 06:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with this is that the vast majority of Falklands roads don't even have two lanes. This is partly what sets off my BS detector that it's probably some propaganda story cooked up by the press or British military. Sure, the Falklanders resented the invasion, but why make reference to something which is fairly ludicrous on closer examination? The only place to have two lane roads in the islands is Stanley. The only half decent road is the one going out to the airport. Most of the rest are so bad that I think you drive on whichever side of the road you're least likely to become bogged down in! --MacRusgail 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. The Falkland government itself even admits that the road network wasn't really well developed until AFTER the Argentine surrender - [7]

[edit] "War" or "conflict"

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

There was no formal declaration of war - but these days it seems to have gone out of fashion - see Declaration of war by the United States. Falklands War is by far the more common term War Conflict. I'd suggest leaving it as war. Megapixie 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In the UK, use of the word "pacific" in place of "specific" is also common, but it's still incorrect. If it is incorrect, we can move and redirect. If it's an urban myth, we should note it as such in the article. Declaration of war by the US is irrelevant, as it wasn't a party to the war/conflict! --Dweller 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The common name for it is "Falklands war" so that's the article name. GraemeLeggett 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Argentina still wants the Falklands Islands and Britain is spending a lot of money on Mount Pleasant. Recent politicians would like to solve the disagreement peacefully. In such an atmosphere the political correct word "conflict" is better then the word "war". Like two drunks in the court trying to degrade their beer fight to a debate.
What happened in 1982, was that the armed forces of two sovereign states were fighting. If that wasn't a war, I don't know what should be called a war.
Hitler didn't declare war prior to invading Poland in 1939, so it should be called "World Conflict Two". The declaration of the MEZ (all ships being sunk by nuclear submarines 200 nautical miles from the Falklands Island) April 12th was a declaration of war IMHO.
I don't know User:Dweller's agenda, but it doesn't make the world more peaceful to rename wars as conflicts. IMHO the everlasting dispute between Argentina and UK could be the "Falklands Conflict" and the bloody incident could be the "Falklands War". Necessary Evil 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no agenda, other than wanting Wikipedia to be accurate and I resent the comment. Not sure what I've done to deserve assuming bad faith. I'm trying to establish or scotch an urban myth, as explained at the top of the thread. After Hitler invaded Poland, Britain declared war. I have actually now found a reputable source for support of what I thought might be a myth - the style guide for the Times newspaper asks journalists to refer to this as "the Falklands conflict because war was never formally declared; if the phrase has to be used, write Falklands war (l/c) [i.e. lower case for the w of war]" ([8]). --Dweller 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It is still referred to as the Falklands War by the vast majority (including the Spanish equivlanet in Spain), no matter what one newspapers says. Interestingly it says to use Six Day War, but this was also never declared. Astrotrain 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If a country declares that all ships within 200 nautical miles of the UK will be sunk - without warning, that would definitely be a declaration of war. Since a war is a war, as long as one of the participants declares it, the Falklands War was a war, dixi.
However, in the seventies Iceland and the UK had coast guard cutters and warships ramming each other. The British newspapers called it the "Cod War" - a pun on the term "Cold War". So if newspaper editors should be in charge of the naming of wikipedia's articles, there would be total chaos.
I'm sorry that user:Dweller is resented, but at least I didn't wrote "hidden agenda", for what it's worth.
Stalingrad is called Volgograd today, but it is still called the "Battle of Stalingrad", not the "Battle of Volgograd". The Cold War wasn't declared at all, but nobody would understand the "Cold Conflict". If the Falklands War is renamed to "Falkvinas Conflict", contents would be: "- the British conflictships were conducting antisubmarine-conflictfare, when suddenly one of them was hit by a missile. The conflicthead of the missile didn't exploded - 11,313 Argentinians were PoC (Prisoners of Conflict)-" and in 2007 the conflict veterans would be commemorating the "skirmish of Mount Longdon", the air conflict, the "skirmish of Goose Green" etc. Necessary Evil 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment about "hidden" agenda and if that was an apology, it's pretty lame, but I'll accept it. Many of your other arguments are inherently and obviously logically flawed. There's no point arguing if this is the level of debate. I sense that there's some POV flying around here, or perhaps there's a history of POV regarding this article. Given the subject matter, perhaps that's inevitable. I'll make a light edit, hopefully POV-free and non controversial. As with anything in WP, if you think I've got it wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me and I welcome this. --Dweller 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I admit that my last paragraph was pretty babbling. The NPOV issue here has primary been to avoid nationalistic statements like:"our brave boys exterminated the bastards" or "the cowardly enemy murdered our heroes" etc. Compared to http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_las_Malvinas where Argentine nationalists are claiming that 1.300 Britons died on the Falklands Island in 1982 and are writing "MALVINAS BELONGS TO ARGENTINA" frequently, I think that en.wikipedia is pretty NPOV. But you seems to refer to another type of POV?? Necessary Evil 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to add my two cents, I agree that the name should stay "war". Falklands Conflict could be a new page, assuming somebody wishes to create it, and its contents could be the history and the continued "fights" about sovereignty of the islands (of which the war was just a chapter). However, I believe that Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands has this well covered so that may not make sense either. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the blanking of the section I added to the article last night. Astrotrain's edit summary "irrelevant what the times calls it, it is the Falklands War in almost all sources (inlcuidng Spanish equivalent" is both false (use of the terminology is fairly widespread, with >1.1 million Google hits) and contrary to WP policy, as The Times is a reputable source. Other reputable sources include The Telegraph ([9]), The Sun ([10]), The Guardian ([11]), The Financial Times ([12]),the RAF ([13]), the British Army ([14]) and the Navy ([15]). --Dweller 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This is an article about the war- not what some newspapers might happen to call it now and again. The Telegraph article for example mentions "Falklands War" about four times, and "Falkalnds conflict" only once- so it seems to be just a writing style. Astrotrain 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose then that it's irrelevant how the British armed forces refer to it. --Dweller 10:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The offical account is titled "Official History of the Falklands Campaign", but I personally go by "titles should represent common usage" from WP:naming GraemeLeggett 11:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The times style guide probably differs from WP:MoS in hundreds of ways. Looking at the times online "Falklands Conflict" is used 91 times without "Falklands War" where as "Falklands War" is used 264 times without "Falklands Confict". The Sun (hardly a good source) "Falklands War" 174 times without "Falklands Conflict" Falklands Conflict 3 times without Falklands War. The Telegraph Falklands Conflict without Falklands War 169 times and "Falklands War" without "Falklands Conflict" 500 times. The RAF is about 40/60 in favour of "Conflict", but the MoD as a whole is massively pro "Falklands War" [16]. NavyNews is split about 40/30 in favour of "Conflict". "Falklands War" is clearly the most commonly used term. Megapixie 11:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing (and never have disputed) that "War" is the more commonly used term. Have you read the edit I made to the article last night? I can't really understand why it was necessary to blank the content. --Dweller 11:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The "issue" is called in spanish "Guerra de las Malvinas", not "Conflicto de las Malvinas". I stand for War. --Neigel von Teighen 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That's incorrect, the official name is Conflicto del Atlantico Sur reflecting the fact Georgias and Sandwichs are also in the disputed. Guerra de las Malvinas is more often related to a cultural impact, Jor70 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

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

IMHO "Royal Marines" is the name of the Royal British Marines in the English language. If in doubt, there is a wikilink. To everyone "Royal Air Force" means "Royal British Air Force" and "CIA" means "United States Central Intelligence Agency". The other Wikipedia have similar words: In German "Luftwaffe" (Air Force) means the "German Air Force" and in French "Marine Nationale" (National Navy) means the "French Navy".
Furthermore Argentina is not a monarchy, so Royal Marines cannot be confused with the Argentine marines. Necessary Evil 11:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding MI6 activity

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

It's discussed in Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy from Napoleon to Al-Qaeda by John Keegan.ALR 08:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Much obliged. Notreallydavid 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascension

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

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

To where, sorry? <_<
According to England, Falkland Islands. Fephisto 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we an drum one up. --BadWolf42 00:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks pretty good in the article. Fephisto 01:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1976 warning

Documents released under the Thirty year rule show that Harold Wilson's governement was warned of possible invasion in 1976[17]. I think this should go in the article. Totnesmartin 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

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

I spent an hour wading through the changes which were mostly unsourced commentary, prose or technically inaccurate. I couldn't fit all the reasons into the edit boxes, I hoped the reasons would be obvious.
Where appropriate I tried to formalise your contributions to a more encyclopedic tone, however, yes, I expunged a fair amount.
For what it's worth, a breakdown of why I edited certain sections:
  • Life under the occupation
POV and unsourced, written in a casual tone.
  • Task force
Speculation, emotive commentary.
  • Black Buck
Unsourced statement about maps that I've never seen in any of the texts, incorrect and inconsistent asseration about crater, repairs and the ability of Stanley to operate fastjets.
  • Belgrano
Speculation, casual tone, questionable deduction about armour. Excessive commentary.
  • Sinking of Sheffield
Technical errors. Casual tone.
Anything you think I've removed unjustifiably? A sourced version of life under the occupation has now been added, and neutered, and I think now contributes, for example. I've also tried to edit and formalise where appropriate and only expunge if it really contributes little.
--BadWolf42 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military : Harriers

There is half a sentance in the Military section, "whilst it proved the small but manoeuvrable jump jet as a true fighter aircraft". I took this out originally, it was reverted back in. I've taken it out again.

The reason for this is that the engagments Harrier fought were simply a case of staying on station and firing Sidewinders at incoming or departing strike aircraft. There was very little engagement; Harrier was operating as a deployable missile platform - and even then, against much older, cheaper and less capable aircraft, which were not even fighters, but strike aircraft, and which were not trying to engage the Harriers at all, but avoid them.

Concluding from these sorts of engagements that the Harrier is a "true fighter aircraft" is ENTIRELY improper.

Toby Douglass 13:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

well your analogy is a bit close minded to the reality of the 1980s, by which i mean that you assumes that the harriers ability to function as a deployable missile platform was not that of a 'true fighter aircraft'. Cannon fire was used to attack argentine planes so some dogfighting did occur. Equally, although facing obselete technology the sea harrier was outnumbered. I believe there were approximately 30 providing air cover for the task force. The main thing to remember is the history of the harrier. It's been designed and built, this amazing aircraft which can hover... and the only people who buy it are the US marine corps who then don't use them, so hardly anyone else will buy them. It was designed in Britian and even the British won't buy it! Then Britain buys a few to boost sales and likes it, and then in 1982 uses them for the first time in a combat role (bear in mind, no one up till then had used one in real combat). Being realistic, there was never any way the poorly trained, ill equipt, low morale argentine army was ever going to defeat a battle hardened professional and high tech British army.... the only really percievable way the argentines could have won the conflict (and nearly did) was to use their air power to destroy the british shipping. Sandy Woodward said that if any of the mission critical ships (i.e. the two carriers) had been destroyed it would have been game over for britain. So the fact the sea harrier could gain air supremacy was incredibly important. Just because its not a spitfire vs' zero style dogfight doesn't mean the harrier wasn't and isn't a true fighter aircraft.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Few (bar possibly Sharky Ward and 801sqn ) seriously considered the SHAR as able to act in an air superiority role prior to 1982. Despite some of the restrictions of the Argentinian Air Force in engaging over the Falklands from Tierra Del Fuego, the Mirage (and hence Dagger) were considered genuine front-line air superiority fighter/interceptors in 1982. They failed to down a single Harrier and, despite their egress speed, still lost a number of aircraft.
Even fewer, post-82, would write off the Sea Harrier in an air superiority role again. Hence, I contend it proved itself, and I maintain the line is valid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BadWolf42 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
No Harrier was lost in ait-to-air combat but a number were show down on bombing missions and a significant number was lost when the Atlantic Conveyor was hit. Confused coyote 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Atlantic Conveyor did transport six RAF Harriers to the South Atlantic Ocean, but they were transfered to HMS Hermes prior to the attack on Atlantic Conveyor. Necessary Evil 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to mention that this is the first time that the Sidewinder (AIM-9L) was first used in combat? Confused coyote 12:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Malvinas question (part 94)

I can't help but notice we (the English wikipedia) include a Spanish name in the opening paragraph of the article, but in the Spanish entry, the English translation is not given.

I therefore propose removing (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) on the basis of this precedent. I know this is contraversial, so I invite discussion. --BadWolf42 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree- the Spanish name for the war is only ever used by Spanish speakers- it is not used in English- and should be removed. We don't give the German translation for World War II in that article for example. Astrotrain 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree- The reason the Spanish name is given is because if you consider the Argentine claim legitimate, that would be what the island would be called. Fephisto 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The Argentinian claim, legitimate or otherwise, is speculative. The UK claim is absolute. The Spanish article does not include it, therefore there is exact parallel precident to not include the (internationally rejected) Argentinian claimed title. --BadWolf42 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
internationally rejected ? sorry, but the last time I check the UN refer to the islands as Falklands/Malvinas and the ISO Standard is also Falklands/Malvinas. Jor70 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Internationally rejected, yes: Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ; Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which seems to suggest the claim is moot. Of course none of that detracts from the fact that Guerre de las Malvinas is not English.--BadWolf42 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The claim had nothing to do here. UN called them Falklands/Malvinas, that is what are we talking here . --Jor70 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, we're talking about a spanish translation for the conflict name, not an alternative spanish pronoun. Since the name in English is the Falklands War, this should not be translated (the translation is not used in English). Mention the alternative Island name by all means, but not a translation of a phrase. --BadWolf42 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


  • I dont see that what they say in the Spanish wikipedia has any relevance here, and given the poor quality of the Spanish wikipedia opverall we shopulkd noty set a precedent like this (ie if they want to behave badly that doesnt entitle us to do so). I would recommend editing the Spanish wikipedia to add the Falklands not removing the Malvinas name from here, SqueakBox 16:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I contend the Spanish version is behaving correctly as in Spanish the conflict has a different name. In English it's only called the Falklands War. This is the English Language Wikipedia and its content should be to that end. We don't see (known in French as Londres) in the London article or (known in German as Zweiter Weltkrieg) in the WW2 article, do we?--BadWolf42 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
According Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names both names are allowed. This conflict is known as Guerras de las Malvinas by at least 400 millions , not seen that is simply NPOV --Jor70 12:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No English speaker calls it Guerras de las Malvinas as only one of those words is a pronoun, the others are spanish. Mention the alternative pronoun for the islands, sure. Don't translate an article title into a foreign tongue. --BadWolf42 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the es version here and will be ionterested to see if I get reverted but if I do it has niothing to do witht the en wikipedia or this page, SqueakBox 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Totally disagree - the Spanish name should be added, especially as in many countries that is the name that the islands are known by --Vintagekits 15:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's the islands, not the war. The Falklands War is not known as Guerra de las Malvinas in any English-speaking nations. --BadWolf42 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If someone says 'la guerra de las malvinas' then they are blatently speaking in spanish, and so should refer to the spanish wiki. In the English language, not the ENGLISH POINT OF VIEW, the war is called 'the falklands war'.

[edit] Role of the media

It would be intresting to see a section on the role of the media in the Falklands, with an outline of the UK government's intervention and effect on the news media output. - CELaycock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.251.0.8 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] So flaklanders dislike Argentina?

(moved by BadWolf42)

I don't deny that most falklanders dislike us, but there are some that don't.

Now i quote http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/2003/A/un030636.html (United nations Decolonization Comittee:

JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, petitioner, said he was a Falklands Islander who had lived on the Argentine mainland for several generations. Since the turn of the nineteenth century, Argentina had welcomed immigrants from around the world. Argentina had just elected a new president and Argentine democracy was slowly maturing. Record crops, herds and the increase in the wool industry made him optimistic about Argentina’s economy, despite its foreign debt. In southern Patagonia, where most Falkland Islanders had settled, there was a promising future in tourism. Many farms in Patagonia had had a good season, and the possibility of working and sharing experience with farms on the Islands would be interesting.

He said Argentina’s legitimate claim to sovereignty could not be denied. An agreement must be reached. The rights of Argentina’s claim to sovereignty would not be dropped. He requested the United Kingdom to respect resolutions on the matter to find a just and lasting solution to the controversy.

ALEJANDRO JACOBO BETTS, a petitioner from the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the issue was one of sovereignty, and the only parties involved in the dispute were Argentina and the United Kingdom. The cause of the problem was the illegal occupation of a territory by an occupying Power and the resulting claim by the prejudiced State for the full recognition of its pre-existing legitimate sovereignty. The only acceptable basis on which to find a just and definitive solution to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas question was through the application of the principle of territorial integrity. The dispute began in 1833, when British military forces invaded and occupied the Islands by force, expelling the original Argentine authorities and inhabitants, he said. Since then, Argentina had never consented to that violation of her territorial integrity. The principle of self-determination could not be utilized to transform an illegitimate occupation into full sovereignty, under the protective shield of the United Nations. He wondered why, in an age when colonialism was being eliminated and mutual respect between nations was being consolidated, did the United Kingdom persist in maintaining its occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas in detriment to its relations with a friendly State.


Quote: "The Argentinian claim, legitimate or otherwise, is speculative."

Alexander Jacob Betts is the first of many falklanders who recognize the argentine right to own the islands. He researched the Falklands' history and found out that the brits told a lot of lies . After the war he movet to the argentine mainland so everything he had on the islands was stolen by the government. Do you think he'd have risked everything he had for some argentine speculations?

—Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Argentino, there is little point in trying to shoehorn Argentina's claim into a territory that has consistently declared that it wants to keep its British status. Manhunting for someone who disagrees does not change that. Luis Dantas 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


What does this article have to do with the question of the English name for the conflict, Argentino?--BadWolf42 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the talk page (or history) of Falkland Islands you can find this same issue, and the name Malvinas was added to the opening paragraph because may english speaking people use that name too. Now two Falklanders, Betts and Lewis, recognize the argentine claim.
The spanish name is included in the argentine claim so there are at least 2 falklanders who use that name, or at least recognize it a the true name.
If there are falklanders that use it, then it should be on the article. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


You're really clutching at straws here, digging up the opinions of two pariahs isn't going to impress anyone, is it?NJW494 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No English speaking Falklanders call it La guerre de las Malvinas. They may recognise their country is referred to by a different name in some regions, but that doesn't mean translating English phrases to spanish.--BadWolf42 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"No English speaking Falklanders call it La guerre de las Malvinas" - did you really actually say that? Of course they dont because it is British running - because this is "English wiki" doesnt mean that it is wiki from Englands POV it means that it is English language wiki--Vintagekits 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you note, this was in response to Argentino's If there are falklanders that use it, then it should be on the article. There are no English speaking Falklanders who say La Guerre de las Malvinas. It therefore does not meet Argentino's criterion to be included. I've nothign against bracketing the first use of Falkland Islands with Malvinas, but the whole phrase is never used in English.--BadWolf42 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Malvinas War

"The Malvinas War" is an alternative name for the Falklands War, I supplied SIX references to back this claim up, ALL references were from BRITISH websites including a Cambridge Universtity paper and the BBC additionally there are also 22,000 hits for Malvinas War on yahoo and 37,000 for Malvinas War on Google. Other editors stated that the term was POV - my opinion is that by stating that the term "the Malvinas War" is POV then they are ignoring facts and simply showing their own POV. However I do not appriciate referenced material being deleted.--Vintagekits 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It may exist but it isnt notable enough to be included in the opening, I have never heard of it and it sounds thoroughly obscure given most people either call it The Falklands War or use spanish and call it "La guerra de las malvinas" which we do include in the opening. I am not the only one who thinks this, and the problem with Malvinas war is it gives credibility to the nname Malvinas in English, which I dont believe it has. Please dont threaten to report me for vandalsim as you will be considered acting in very por faith making what you know to be a false claim, edits need to be notable and not merely referenced, and anyway the article is protected, so much for alleged vandalism (lol), SqueakBox 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We might as well call it La guerra de los Falklands, SqueakBox 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not notable? 37,000 hits on Google!--Vintagekits 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
(a) that isnt many, (b) we cant use google research here as it is original research, and (c) in the opinion of myself and at least one other editor it isnt notable, no. On the other hand it does sound like pOV pushing, as would La Guerra de Los Falklands be either here or in the es wikipedia, SqueakBox 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How many is "many" then? I tend to stick to facts, I will leave the POV pushing to you. If it is POV can you explain these (more to come if you have a problem with these -
Infact I consider the article page title POV and it should be changed to The Falklands/Malvinas War--Vintagekits 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"Falklands War" is how it is most widely known in English, so that should be the title, but "Malvinas War" is also used sometimes in English (as Google shows), so this should be noted somewhere in the article and bolded as an alternate name. Jonathunder 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It should only be bolded if in the oepning and I for one strongly oppose its mention int he opening, SqueakBox 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it clearly is used as an alternate name, and alternate names are conventionally bolded here. We must present both points of view. Jonathunder 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont think it is used enough to be considered in the opening, we already have La guerra de las malvinas and to also put in this obscure The Malvinas Watr looks like POV pushing and would even more with 2 refs to Malvinas in the openiong. SDuch a contentious edit will never last because of its extreme anti-Brit sentiments, SqueakBox 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not "anti-Brit" to plainly report the fact "Malvinas War" is used, as it clearly is, especially by those who avoid the term "Falklands". In doing that, Wikipedia is not taking any side, it is just reporting what terms partisans take or avoid. Jonathunder 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Your points are only showing your POV. Over 30,000 hits on google shows it is not obscure and the page name should be altered to The Falklands/Malvinas War. To highlight this point I should point out that an article called Malvinas War was already set up back in July 2004 and is infact an automatic redirect to this page!!!! --Vintagekits 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oi oi! look what I found - Falklands/Malvinas War was also set up in August last year by PaulHanson and is again an automatic redirect to this page!!!!--Vintagekits 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's fine as a redirect. The war is known as The Falklands War and you simply wont get support for changing it to a name that it was never called and never will be called. Its called The Falklands war or La Guerra de Las Malvinas and we have to use common usage and as this is the En edition. Google is just finding documents with both the word war and the word Malvinas in them and even were there 30,000 documents its nowhere near enought o change the page. This is clearly politically motivated POV pushing, SqueakBox 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "the war is known as The Falklands War" - yes, it is known as the The Falklands War BUT it is ALSO known as The Malvinas War.
  • "it was never called and never will be called" - that is plainly wrong and you are just ignoring ALL the references that I shown you and the 30,000 hits for it on Google.co.uk - additional I and many other people I know solely call it the Malvinas War and never use the term Falklands War.
  • There are two English terms for the war and one Spain - all should be incorporated.
  • If you search for Malvinas War with inverted commas around it then it will search that exact term only so again you are wrong.
  • The only person pushing a POV is you - I am not saying that the article name should be changed to The Malvinas War what I am saying is that both English names should be incorporated into the title in order to be fair and balanced.
  • Finally, I only highlight the redirects to highlight that these terms are already out there and can not be whitewashed--Vintagekits 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Which I have now put in the article along with your 6 references, SqueakBox 23:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you've just now put it on (on line 339!!!!) at least now you accept its legitimacy - however, it should be Incorporated into the title - ie. either Malvinas/Falklands War, Falklands/Malvinas War,The Malvinas/Falklands War or The Falklands/Malvinas War--Vintagekits 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I strongly oppose that, as did 2 other editors this morning. From what I know of the history of this article and its contributors its likely that you'll have a hard tiime getting a consensus. We already say Malvinas in the opening and now mention this alternative, what more do you want? esp remebering NPOV, SqueakBox 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are serious about moving the article, you can list this at Requested Moves, but I doubt from experience and knowlege of the naming conventions that the article will be moved. Jonathunder 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt all kinds of redirects exist. Even redirects from common misspellings are helpful to readers. The article should be at the most common English name for the thing, however, with alternate names used given in the text. Jonathunder 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The only point of contention is where in the text. certainly not in the opening where we already give the Spanish version, SqueakBox 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

When you say "the only pov pushing is you" do you refer to me alone or the 3 editors who reverted you this morning (lol)? to say calling it The Falklands War is POV pushing is plain ridiculous and not really worth the effort to debate over. Only pro-Argentinians would claim otherwise and this article must not and clearly will not become an Argentinian nationalist propaganda tool, SqueakBox 00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Again you are showing your POV - what I am saying is that we should be reporting the facts - FACTS not POV - you are ignoring the fact that in the English language the war is not only called The Falklands War but is also called The Malvinas War. Facts not POV, try it! --Vintagekits 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That is not really true, Vintagekits. The name "Malvinas" is not recognized at all by the established government of the Islands. It is not an "alternate" name for them, but rather a part of the (IMNSHO illegitimate) claim from Argentina for sovereignity over them. Using that name in Spanish to refer to the Islands is already somewhat improper if not altogether delirious; using it in English is simply pointless. The article should recognize that some countries (especially in South America) call them "Malvinas", but not treat that name as if it were legitimate - it is not. I would much rather recognize "Bharata" as a legitimate English language name for India; that, at least, is a name that some of the actual people living there want to use, as opposed to what happens in the Falklands. Luis Dantas 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Luis, I am not saying the Malvinas is the official name for the islands - the arguement is that "The Malvinas War" is the alternate English name for the War along with the Falklands War.--Vintagekits 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes but its not equally called those names, ie 99% of people say Falklands and the other 1% of politically motivated Brit haters say Malvinas, so that is why it should be on line 339 and not on line 2, SqueakBox 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, totally POV and its getting boring - try being a little balanced--Vintagekits 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, lets wait and see what some other editors think in the morning, eh? I suspect there are those who will agree with me if not go further, SqueakBox 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Truth be told, SqueakBox, nearly all Brazilians (and, I figure, Argentinians too) name the Islands "Malvinas", weird as that is. That is due to the strong rejection of the English language that exists in these countries, I am afraid. Luis Dantas 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose we mention the spanish name for the Falkland Islands in parentheses, but not La guere de la Malvinas, as that's not a spanish pronoun, but a simple spanish translation, which has no place in an English article. --BadWolf42 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So then, you agreed to use Falklands (Malvinas) War instead of Falklands/Malvinas War ? I can live with that. --Jor70 14:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Malvinas War" seems to be a common term in Marxist/left leaning circles skimming through those many google found links. And a lot of the links are to "Falklands/Malvinas War" not purely "Malvinas War" - presumably the writer is trying to be even-handed.GraemeLeggett 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd propse the following: --BadWolf42 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The Falklands War was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands (Spanish: las Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Falklands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina, whose ownership had long been disputed. (See Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for the background to that dispute.)
The only problem with that is that 1. It doesnt give the alternative English name and 2. nor does it give the Spanish name for the war, which which are both fundamental flaws imo, and could look like an attempt to whitewash--Vintagekits 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The alternative English names would be Falklands Crisis or Falklands Conflict, both of which are in more use than Malvinas War, so I think we can rule all out as an unimportant minority (NPOV does not require equal prominence for extreme minority views). There is no need to give a spanish translation of the name of the war, as this is the English Wikipedia, and offering alternative pronouns used by Argentinians speaking English is one thing, translating a phrase into spanish is another. No-one would use the full phrase in spanish when speaking in English.--BadWolf42 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually that is incorrect and google and yahoo both bare that out - we could also say that Malvinas Crisis or Malvinas Conflict!! Undue prominence is given the term Falklands over Malvinas which is POV. Also it is standard wiki policy to give a translation for interlingual affairs. It just seems to me that some British editors have a serious negative almost allergic reaction as soon as the word Malvinas is mentioned which is clearly POV - we should try and be objective and not just put one side forward.--Vintagekits 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This isnt so as Malvinas is a Spanish name and Falklands an English name and this is an English wikipedia so of course we must give precedence to the name Falklands. I would argue giving too much prominence to the Spanish name on the English wikipedia would indicate that wikipedia is taking the Argentine side of this conflict whereas using Falklands only indicates that we are the English wikipedia. I dont believe anyone is opposed to the insertion of the word Malvinas, it just needs to be done in an NPOV waty and I tend to agree this means saying Falklands (Malvinas) but not La Guerra de Las Malvinas, which is a bit of a mouthful for English speakers, SqueakBox 16:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Because its a "mouthful for English speakers" is not a reason not to include it. To assume that I am taking the Argentinian side because I want to report facts is acting in bad faith. Malvinas is not just the Spamish name and as seen from the references provided it is widely accepted term in English also, as I already highlight many English speakers ONLY refer to the Malvinas Islands and dont use the term Falklands at all - granted these are not British people but as they were engaged in a War over these island I think it would be fair to assume that they would have a dipole attitude.--Vintagekits 16:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I didnt say I thought you were taking sides, but it would appear that wikipedia is, regardless of your own intentions. Its a mouthful for English speakers because it is Spanish not for any other reason, yet this is the English wikipedia. You havent shown that any English speakers only use the word Malvinas nor would it be possible for you to do so, SqueakBox 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I don't agree that Google is best practice for establishing the predominance of a term, let's have a quick look at pages written in English:
Malvinas war: 11,600 English
Falklands Crisis: 11,800 English
Fallands Conflict: 168,000 English
Falklands War: 469,000 English
Now can we assume this is not a significant alternative term? Can you cite where it's standard Wikipedia policy to translate to a foreign language? The Second World War is not translated to German, but Third Reich is used: this is fair. Malvinas is a pronoun so dissimilar from The Falkland Islands and used by Argentinians even when speaking in English, so it deserves subordinate inclusion (as I propose). The full phrase for the war translated is not used when speaking in English, so it's not appropriate. Malvinas War is just bizzarely minor.--BadWolf42 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Are we getting crazy? The English name for the islands is "Falklands". I am an Argentine editor, call them Malvinas when speaking spanish but never in English. This is not the place for Political Correctness. Call them Malvinas in a little teeny-weeny paragraph far-from-the-intro if you want but don't change the name of article or the intro. NPOV is not "all points of view", is "neutral points of view". If it's not common in the english language (and Malvinas War is used, but very far from common) then it is my contention that it should only have a place in the fringes, but not preponderant. Using the word Malvinas in the article Falkland Islands makes sense, but not so much here. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Totally disagree with Sebastian. I think we are not crazy enough to recognize that the islands are called Malvinas in Spanish and by non-spanish pro-argentinians. Not mention the world Malvinas in the intro is therefore a NPOV violation and as I shown before in the wikipedia help this is acceptable due is a controversial name. Therefore I'd propse the following: The Falklands War (or Malvinas War) was a ... --Jor70 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We can say Malvinas is the Es translation for Falklands but by saying Malvinas war we imply the term Malvinas war has equal weight to the term Falklands War which is clearly not true and in this case equally clearly would be pro Argentinian POV as nobody without a pro Argentine POV would call it the Malvinas War whereas most neutral people like me would call it the Falklands War in English and only use Malvinas when speaking Spanish, SqueakBox 19:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also strongly diagree and refer the gentleman to my previous proposal. There is no significant alternative name for the article in the English Language. There is an argument for an alternative name for the islands, later. However. --BadWolf42 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sebastian I believe your searches are inaccurate because in your searches you have done them on the basis that the term "Malvinas" is also not used in the article which completely disfigures the result--Vintagekits 17:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have shown many times where people refer to both Falklands and Malvinas in English and thats is the kind of proof that is need, also I am a native English speaker and I do not use the term Falklands and as you can see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here in these English language articles that Malvinas is used SOLELY or in preferance to the term Falklands.

Therefore I'd propse the following:

  1. The article name is changed to Falklands/Malvinas War
This still show the promenance of the term Falklands over the term Malvinas, and
  1. We use the opening paragraph of - The Falklands War or Malvinas War(Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands (Spanish: las Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Falkland Islands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina, whose ownership had long been disputed. (See Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for the background to that dispute.)
This is the only solution if the article is to conform to WP:NPOV--Vintagekits 17:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. The content is the worst of all worlds mentioning an extreme minority view and a totally different language. Your logic about this being the only solution is extremely flawed. --BadWolf42 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your personal experience is not relevant, that would be original research. I oppose your proposal and support Bad Wolf's proposal. We already mention the Malvinas War lower down and given this is a minority POV, as made perfectly clear form the websites you have given links to, line 300 and something seems about right, SqueakBox 17:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I only highlight my personal experiences because others have - I have also given references to back up my claims--Vintagekits 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend something like

The Falklands War', also known as Guerra de los Malvinas in Spanish...

etc. Squeakbox, your first comment in this section said how in your personal experience you had never heard of the war being called this, but know you said that someone elses personal experience is not relevant? Its not a case of translation, or of being POV. RHB 18:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree in my opinion he seems to have a hypocritical POV on this subject--Vintagekits 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, I wasnt suggesting using my POV in the article whereas Vintage was, SqueakBox 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Guerra de los Malvinas is a Spanish name for a conflict, not an English name. An alternative pronoun for the islands used in English-speaking Latin American countries is fair enough to describe the Islands, it does not describe the war.--BadWolf42 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
BadWolf42: This is about the fourth time you've used the word "pronoun" on this page. Please could you read Pronoun? The phrase you mean is "proper noun". The Wednesday Island 13:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Given there is absolutely no consensus for the socialist term malvinas War ion the opening I have reverted it. Please try to gain consensus for such a controversial opening before editing it or it will just be reverted. it seems to me the consensus is to have one translation inc Malvinas and to put the bit about the Malvinas war where it deserves top go as an extreme minority POV, ie at the bottom, SqueakBox 22:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no concensus to keep it the way it was also - and stating that it is a "socialist term" may be the truth in ENgland but not elsewhere - remember this is not an "English POV" site just because it is an English language site.--Vintagekits 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
No, but it's a site that uses the terms English speakers use. Your phase is used by a few radical anti-Britons and Marxists and is not worthy of equal consideration (which WP:NPOV emphasises). It's worth mentioning in some Spanish-speaking countries when translating to English use the hybrid term, which is why the Name section was added at the foot. The status quo doesn't make sense either, IMO, as it's not an English language term. --BadWolf42 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replace Spanish translation with alternative name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logoistic 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Other wikipedia battle examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] recent peer review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the beginning, the performance of the Argentine Air Force FAA is despised, whilest we are talking about the efforts of the Royal Navy, the british pilots skills, etc , throught all the article
“ General Crespo. He had to minimize the effect of Argentina’s liabilities: the technological inferiority of the Argentine air force and naval air arm, operations at his attack aircraft’s maximum combat range, the lack of adequate air-refueling capability, and the lack of early warning and reconnaissance assets. Considering these limitations, General Crespo did very well with the forces and capabilities he had available. He used the three weeks prior to the beginning of hostilities to organize and train his strike force to conduct a naval air campaign—a mission in which only two of his small naval air units were previously trained. He learned from his mistakes—apparently the only Argentine senior commander who did. After 1 May, he avoided high-altitude ingress beyond the point where British radar could detect his forces and made great use of low-altitude attacks to avoid detection and achieve surprise. His improvised Fenix squadron creatively baited the British with decoys, forced a response, and stretched their CAP coverage to improve the chances of survival and success of his attack force. The professional competence of his headquarters staff was demonstrated by their ability to plan numerous long-range air strikes and coordinate the very limited air-refueling support.

The record of the FAS in the Falklands War is impressive. The pilots of the Skyhawk, Dagger, Mirage, and Etendard squadrons demonstrated remarkable piloting and navigation skills. The low-level attacks were exceptionally difficult and dangerous.

The FAA Transport Command also performed superbly. During April, the small transport force mobilized everything that could fly and airlifted almost 8,000 troops and 5,037 tons of supplies, weapons, vehicles, and fuel into the Falklands.29 Even after the arrival of the British fleet and its proclamation of a full air blockade of the Falklands, the transports continued to fly into Port Stanley by night, bringing in supplies and airlifting out the wounded. FAA transports continued to slip past the British through the last night of the war. These were very dangerous missions—as evidenced by the loss of one C-130 transport to a Harrier sidewinder. [1]

 ”

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

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

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


[edit] Balance POV article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Confusing sentence

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

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

[edit] Lead section image

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

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

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

[edit] Cultural impact

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

[edit] No mention of the "three flags"?

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/l/Talk%7EFalklands_War_62d5.html"