→The Malvinas question (part 94): not Internationally rejected by UN |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Falklands War/Archive 14) (bot |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=60|archive_units=days|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{WPMILHIST|class = B}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Military history |
|||
{{FalklandsWarProj}} |
|||
|class= C |
|||
{{WPArgentina|topic=hist|class=A|importance=top}} |
|||
|B-Class-1= no |
|||
{{FAOL|Spanish|es:Guerra de las Malvinas}} |
|||
|B-Class-2= yes |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
|B-Class-3= yes |
|||
On [[Template:March 19 selected anniversaries]] |
|||
|B-Class-4= yes |
|||
|B-Class-5= yes |
|||
|British= yes |
|||
|South-American= yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject British Overseas Territories|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Argentina |importance=Top |topic=hist}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject South America|importance=High|Falkland Islands=yes|Falkland Islands-importance=high}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{British English}} |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
|action1=RBP |
|||
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion |
|||
|action1result=demoted |
|||
|action2=FAC |
|||
Archive of [[Talk:Falklands War/Archive01|previous talk]]. |
|||
|action2date=2004-11-20, 18:32:00 |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November_2004#Falklands_War |
|||
|action2result=not promoted |
|||
|action2oldid=7696103 |
|||
|action3=PR |
|||
== 'Cultural impacts' and 'artistic treatments' sections == |
|||
|action3date=2006-12-12, 22:16:54 |
|||
|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Falklands War/archive1 |
|||
|action3result=Reviewed |
|||
|action3oldid=93905873 |
|||
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|||
These two sections seem to largely cover the same ground and repeat each other - maybe they should be merged? [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 08:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
|otd1date=2004-03-19|otd1oldid=6413881 |
|||
|otd2date=2005-03-19|otd2oldid=16334945 |
|||
|otd3date=2007-04-02|otd3oldid=119716472 |
|||
|otd4date=2008-06-14|otd4oldid=218790784 |
|||
|otd5date=2010-06-14|otd5oldid=367869140 |
|||
|otd6date=2011-06-14|otd6oldid=434255967 |
|||
|otd7date=2014-06-14|otd7oldid=612856790 |
|||
}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|counter = 14 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|algo = old(60d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Falklands War/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=Talk:Falklands War/Archive index |
|||
|mask=Talk:Falklands War/Archive <#> |
|||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|||
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|||
* <nowiki>[[Southern Thule#Argentine occupation 1976–1982|Argentine occupation of Southern Thule]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Argentine occupation 1976–1982) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/1175352574|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Argentine occupation 1976–1982","appear":{"revid":780256309,"parentid":777843775,"timestamp":"2017-05-13T22:16:27Z","replaced_anchors":{"Argentine occupation 1976–82":"Argentine occupation 1976–1982"},"removed_section_titles":["Argentine occupation 1976–82"],"added_section_titles":["Argentine occupation 1976–1982"]},"disappear":{"revid":1175352574,"parentid":0,"timestamp":"2023-09-14T13:30:29Z","removed_section_titles":["History","Argentine occupation 1976–1982","Aftermath","External links","Bibliography"],"added_section_titles":["Sources","CITEREFBaker1978"]}} --> |
|||
* <nowiki>[[Yomp#The Yomper|The Yomper]]</nowiki> The anchor (The Yomper) [[Special:Diff/1081428257|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"The Yomper","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":1081428257,"parentid":1080170065,"timestamp":"2022-04-07T10:37:17Z","removed_section_titles":["Synonyms","The Yomper"],"added_section_titles":["Falklands War","Photograph","Memorial","Similar terms"]}} --> |
|||
}} |
|||
== Probably unimportant, but "Guerra de *las* Malvinas"? == |
|||
===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.. [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I am 32 years old, from Buenos Aires, and I'm yet to hear or read a native Spanish speaker include the plural feminine article in the name of this armed conflict. |
|||
: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. --[[User:BadWolf42|BadWolf42]] 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Looks to me as a bona fide mistake from someone who speaks Spanish as a second language, or it may just be a calc from their mother tongue. |
|||
::Fine by me, I was tempted to do the same myself... [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Either way, somehow the offending article seems to have propagated even to the Spanish wiki. |
|||
:::Righto. I'll merge the Argentinian bits in its separate section into it too. --[[User:BadWolf42|BadWolf42]] 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Did anybody else think the inclusion of the article sounds rather awkward in Spanish? Cheers. [[Special:Contributions/190.247.206.108|190.247.206.108]] ([[User talk:190.247.206.108|talk]]) 09:40, 22 February 2024 (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. -[[User:Fsotrain09|Fsotrain09]] 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:What is it called in Argentina? [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 09:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Is this required in any way? Why shouldn't this be in the daughter article? If it should, why should it be duplicated? --[[User:BadWolf42|BadWolf42]] 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Everyone here says "Guerra de Malvinas", but I also believe that's the case for every Spanish speaker. |
|||
:::: The summary, you mean? See [[WP:SS|the content guideline on that]]. -[[User:Fsotrain09|Fsotrain09]] 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::You would say "Las Malvinas" and "Las Islas Malvinas", but "Guerra de Malvinas" without the article. Articles are confusing, I know, but including it in this case is something I'd expect maybe from a Ukrainian (as they omit many that are required and insert some where they don't belong), but never from a native speaker. [[Special:Contributions/190.247.206.108|190.247.206.108]] ([[User talk:190.247.206.108|talk]]) 10:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::And it's not just a matter every-day speech. Look at this, verbatim within an article of legislation, straight from the official archive: |
|||
:::https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/50000-54999/50278/norma.htm [[Special:Contributions/190.247.206.108|190.247.206.108]] ([[User talk:190.247.206.108|talk]]) 10:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::The Spanish Wikipedia uses [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_las_Malvinas] Guerra de las Malvinas, the Spanish translation was provided by our Argentine colleagues rather than it being a mistake by an English speaker. Because of silly edit wars we've had in the past I'd advise on holding off on any changes since the language guideline in MOS specifies current text, so a wider change in policy is required. {{ping|Cambalachero}}, {{ping|Kahastok}} I've pinged other editors as I'm currently taking a wikibreak due to family problems. You might get me via email and I will try to look in occasionally. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 11:15, 22 February 2024 (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. --[[User:BadWolf42|BadWolf42]] 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In the original message I mentioned the awkwardness somehow propagated to the Spanish wiki. Also, the Spanish wiki suffers from a lack of adherence to rules and conventions of orthography and punctuation, and is gravely plagued by calcs and poor translations of the better produced English articles. In fact, you just have to take a look at the Spanish talk page on the war and you would see how much was borrowed from the English one to replace entire sections that were brief, biased by the influence of irredentist activists and had an absolute lack of eloquence. I’ll make the point to have it fixed there as well. |
|||
:::::I hope I explained myself better this time. [[Special:Contributions/190.247.206.108|190.247.206.108]] ([[User talk:190.247.206.108|talk]]) 11:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I also think silly edit wars shouldn’t stop us from having correct articles. I am ignorant, but I find it hard to believe someone will start a foolish edit war on account of replacing a weird calc with the proper expression that represents how all Spanish speakers (jurists included) actually talk. [[Special:Contributions/190.247.206.108|190.247.206.108]] ([[User talk:190.247.206.108|talk]]) 11:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::All interesting. I recall the debate about an indefinite article used by JFK, wrongly or rightly.[https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/john-f-kennedys-statement-ich-bin-ein-berliner-was-not-interpreted-as-i-am-a-jelly-filled-doughnut/] Also of interest, if you are correct, is how a simple error of fact, that at first sight looks plausible, can spread like wildfire and become ingrained into people's minds without question and is hard to change. Besides getting the opinion of native speakers I suppose we should get two or three examples from reliable secondary sources, which is the ultimate guide, not what Spanish speakers actually say. You have provided one source already, thanks. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 13:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yeah, it wasn’t my intention to have my suggestion be accepted at face value. I saw this in your article and then I was surprised and definitely confused (made me question my sanity for an instant) when I found it was the same in Spanish, with also every Romance language wikis having a literal word by word translation (although in most cases the article is included in a contraction with the preposition - delle, das, etc). I wanted to make sure I’m not the only one that finds that phrase odd. Also, first ever attempt to change the wiki; so sorry. |
|||
::::::::I’ll get a couple sources more and get back to you later. Thanks for your attention. [[Special:Contributions/190.247.206.108|190.247.206.108]] ([[User talk:190.247.206.108|talk]]) 16:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Sorry, I was also wondering what’s the point in providing an awkward translation to the language of the other side if it doesn’t match the actual vernacular expression? Even if it was the case that in Spain it sounded natural, it’s off and better left out. Argentines of every walk of life absolutely leave the definite article out, I just need to gather sources or get the attention of my countrymen. |
|||
:::::::::But it is exactly like you said. How did such a simple error to catch get so far? |
|||
:::::::::My money is on hypercorrection by contagion from Romance languages that can contract the feminine article (maybe? - Spanish only contracts the masculine art.) |
|||
:::::::::Hopefully someone much wiser can shed some light. Thanks again. [[Special:Contributions/190.247.206.108|190.247.206.108]] ([[User talk:190.247.206.108|talk]]) 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::State-owned research institution: |
|||
::::::::::https://santafe.conicet.gov.ar/guerra-de-malvinas-39-anos/ |
|||
::::::::::Fact-checking publication: |
|||
::::::::::https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/a-40-anos-de-la-guerra-de-malvinas-5-desinformaciones-que-circularon-durante-la-guerra/ |
|||
::::::::::Federal government website: |
|||
::::::::::https://www.argentina.gob.ar/educacion/efemerides/2-abril-malvinas |
|||
::::::::::British media group: |
|||
::::::::::https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-60297592 [[Special:Contributions/190.247.206.108|190.247.206.108]] ([[User talk:190.247.206.108|talk]]) 16:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Sorry, this was the relevant BBC article: |
|||
:::::::::::https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-61793378 |
|||
:::::::::::Institute of aviation instruction: |
|||
:::::::::::http://www.eam.iua.edu.ar/eam/guerra-de-malvinas/ |
|||
:::::::::::National institute of geography: |
|||
:::::::::::https://www.ign.gob.ar/content/40-a%C3%B1os-de-la-guerra-de-malvinas |
|||
:::::::::::A might not be gone fishing after all. [[Special:Contributions/190.247.206.108|190.247.206.108]] ([[User talk:190.247.206.108|talk]]) 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Calc means calcium or calculator. What do you mean by it? [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:8FB1:F600:E09D:8|B61:595B:C909|2A00:23C8:8FB1:F600:E09D:8B61:595B:C909]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C8:8FB1:F600:E09D:8B61:595B:C909|talk]]) 10:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Probably means [[Wikt:calque|calque]]. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 12:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I've made the change. If it's wrong it can always be changed back again. '''''[[User:Kahastok|Kahastok]]''''' <small>''[[User Talk:Kahastok|talk]]''</small> 21:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Infobox== |
|||
== [[Prince Andrew, Duke of York|Prince Andrew]] as [[Exocet]] decoy? == |
|||
The infobox has only the UK and Argentina as belligerents. I suggest that the Falkland Islands are added under the UK, with Rex Hunt added as a leader under the Falkland Islands flag. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 13:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Mobilization of the Federal Penitentiary Service during the war == |
|||
Prince Andrew "revealed in an apparently inadvertent admission shortly after the war that he also flew missions as an Exocet missile decoy." |
|||
Members of Argentina's Federal Penitentiary Service were mobilized when the war started. They were organized into an infantry company and attached to the XI Infantry Brigade, and nicknamed "black necks" due to their unique prison guard uniforms which the rest of the army didn't have. During the war they guarded strategic locations in and around Rio Gallegos against potential British commando raids. Would it be OK to mention this in the article, provided I find an acceptable source? I think its an interesting detail. |
|||
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.[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/HJA.htm] |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Federal_Penitentiary_Service [[User:Bob meade|Bob meade]] ([[User talk:Bob meade|talk]]) 22:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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. '''[[Special:Contributions/Newsmare|<font color="red">◄</font>]][[User talk:Newsmare|<font color="red">ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ</font>]][[User_talk:Newsmare|<font color="red">►</font>]]''' 03:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Nomination of [[Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba]] for deletion == |
|||
: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. --[[User:BadWolf42|BadWolf42]] 22:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I have nominated the article [[Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba]], which is related to this topic, for deletion. Please feel free to comment at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba]]. '''''[[User:Kahastok|Kahastok]]''''' <small>''[[User Talk:Kahastok|talk]]''</small> 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The problem is that the citation from the BBC[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1463979.stm] 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..."[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20613F8355B0C718DDDAB0894D9494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fR%2fRoyal%20Family] 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. '''[[Special:Contributions/Newsmare|<font color="red">◄</font>]][[User talk:Newsmare|<font color="red">ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ</font>]][[User_talk:Newsmare|<font color="red">►</font>]]''' 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.--[[User:BadWolf42|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.[[User:ALR|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!--[[User:BadWolf42|BadWolf42]] 11:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==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? -[[User:Fsotrain09|Fsotrain09]] 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Alright, I've created [[Cultural impact of the Falklands War]]. Now those subsections need summarizing. -[[User:Fsotrain09|Fsotrain09]] 17:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==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.{{unsigned|User:BlaiseFEgan}} |
|||
: 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. --[[User:WikipedianProlific|WikipedianProlific]][[User_Talk:WikipedianProlific|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 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.--[[User:BadWolf42|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. --[[User:BadWolf42|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. |
|||
== 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". |
|||
[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=86158&dict=CALD Cambridge Online Dictionary showing coordinated] |
|||
[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=unco-ordinated&x=0&y=0&= Same, not recognising archaic spelling] |
|||
[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/uncoordinated?view=uk Oxford Concise showing coordinated] |
|||
[http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=unco-ordinated&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact Oxford Concise not recognising co-ordinated] |
|||
It seems he has [[User talk:Tashtastic|history]] with poor spelling edits, and is clearly being bloodyminded. Recommended courses of action? |
|||
--[[User:BadWolf42|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falklands_War&curid=11523&diff=69420112&oldid=69418422 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. [[User:Mtiedemann|Martín]] <small>([[User talk:Mtiedemann|saying]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mtiedemann|doing]])</small> 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. --[[User:BadWolf42|BadWolf42]] 18:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::He's still at it, offering proof by assertion [[User talk:Tashtastic|here]].--[[User:BadWolf42|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? [[User:WikipedianProlific|WikipedianProlific]][[User_Talk:WikipedianProlific|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 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) |
|||
== 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 [[Cultural impact of the Falklands War|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. |
|||
* The remembrance memorial in Buenos Aires photograph has been moved to [[Cultural impact of the Falklands War]]. |
|||
* 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. --[[User:BadWolf42|BadWolf42]] 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==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. [[User:Necessary Evil|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". [[User:Toby Douglass|Toby Douglass]] 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== POW numbers == |
|||
In the beginning of the article:''United Kingdom - 2 taken prisoner''.<br> |
|||
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. [[User:Necessary Evil|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) [[User:JimWhitaker|Jim Whitaker]] 17:38, 29 December 2006 (GMT) |
|||
Please add to the article referencing your sources with a <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>. Dont worry about making mistakes if you are new as I will fix them, [[User:SqueakBox|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 <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> tags properly? I have added the book to the references since it seems to complement the others listed. --[[User:JimWhitaker|Jim Whitaker]] 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== 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. {{unsigned|70.194.218.58}} |
|||
:As ever - we cannot include unreferenced information even if it is true - see [[WP:Verify]]. [[User:Megapixie|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?{{unsigned|70.194.218.58}} |
|||
::Sigh. Just someone who was under the impression we were here to build a free encyclopedia. [[User:Megapixie|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.{{unsigned|70.194.218.58}} |
|||
==Campaign Box== |
|||
Thought a campaign box would be useful: |
|||
{{Campaignbox Falklands War}} |
|||
== 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. [[User:Baseracer|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. [[User:Marianocecowski|Mariano]]<small>([[User talk:Marianocecowski|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Marianocecowski|c]])</small> 09:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Casualties == |
|||
Though officially 258 British died during the conflict, in the Spanish article they cite the [http://www.ejercito.mil.ar/InMemori/MalvinasHistoria.asp 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? [[User:Marianocecowski|Mariano]]<small>([[User talk:Marianocecowski|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Marianocecowski|c]])</small> 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. [[User:Necessary Evil|Necessary Evil]] 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: You know, napalm was used on occasion, by Pucarás. [[User:Toby Douglass|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.[[User:ALR|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 (TV series)|M*A*S*H 4077]] does also makes the Korean War/Falklands War comparison stranger.[[User:Necessary Evil|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.[[User:ALR|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. [[User:Marianocecowski|Mariano]]<small>([[User talk:Marianocecowski|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Marianocecowski|c]])</small> 09:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I've made an enquiry to the discussion page at the German wikipedia[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Falklandkrieg]. They should know it.[[User:Necessary Evil|Necessary Evil]] 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks a lot. [[User:Marianocecowski|Mariano]]<small>([[User talk:Marianocecowski|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Marianocecowski|c]])</small> 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:At the Spanish wikipedia [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusión:Guerra_de_las_Malvinas#Verdadera_cantidad_de_bajas_britanicas_en_Malvinas] 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 [[User:Necessary Evil|Necessary Evil]] 10:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== 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 [http://www.sama82.org/garden/2/5/3/home.htm] 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.<br> |
|||
[[User:Necessary Evil|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. [[User:Megapixie|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. [[User:Necessary Evil|Necessary Evil]] 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: as the secret exists, something must be out there. The [http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm 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) [[User:Jor70|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 [[User:Necessary Evil|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 [[User:Jor70|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. [[User:Toby Douglass|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, [[Mirage (aircraft)|Mirage]]s could have created air superiority, and [[Skyhawk]]s 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 bomber]]s 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 [[S-2 Tracker|ASW aircraft]] and [[H-3 Sea King|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 [[Special Air Service|SAS]] in Argentina? |
|||
:Regards [[User:Necessary Evil|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 [http://www.nuncamas.org/document/militar/rattenbach/rattenbach00.htm 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. [[User:Jor70|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 [[User:Necessary Evil|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. [[User:Astrotrain|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. [[User:Toby Douglass|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? [[User:Necessary Evil|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. [[User:Toby Douglass|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. [[User:Astrotrain|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 destroyer]]s. Of course Royal Navy knew all about the type 42's blind angles, but ARA also had three modern French build [[D'Estienne d'Orves class|frigates/corvettes]] (which failed to detect that ''[[HMS Spartan (S105)|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.[[User:Necessary Evil|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. [[User:Jor70|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*. [[User:Toby Douglass|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. [[User:Astrotrain|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 [[User:Necessary Evil|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 [[HMY Britannia|Royal Yacht ''Britannia'']] as a hospital ship- for similar reasons. [[User:Astrotrain|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. [[User:Sebastiankessel|Sebastian Kessel]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Sebastiankessel|Talk]]''</sup> 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. [[User:Necessary Evil|Necessary Evil]] 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==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! --[[User:MacRusgail|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. |
|||
[[User:84.70.159.152|84.70.159.152]] 06:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== "War" or "conflict" == |
|||
I've heard it stated that the Falklands was a conflict, not a war, as neither side officially declared war. Is this correct? Our article doesn't seem to refer to this, either to confirm it (which would require an article name change!) or to scotch it as an urban myth. Certainly, contemporary politicians seemed to be careful to call it a conflict. --[[User:Dweller|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 [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Falklands+War%22&btnG=Google+Search War] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Falklands+Conflict%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search Conflict]. I'd suggest leaving it as war. [[User:Megapixie|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! --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::The common name for it is "Falklands war" so that's the article name. [[User:GraemeLeggett|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". [[User:Necessary Evil|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]" ([http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2941-583,00.html]). --[[User:Dweller|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. [[User:Astrotrain|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 '''conflict'''ships were conducting antisubmarine-'''conflict'''fare, when suddenly one of them was hit by a missile. The '''conflict'''head 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. [[User:Necessary Evil|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. --[[User:Dweller|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?? [[User:Necessary Evil|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. [[User:Sebastiankessel|Sebastian Kessel]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Sebastiankessel|Talk]]''</sup> 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 ([http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/nvulcan14.xml]), The Sun ([http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006500606,00.html]), The Guardian ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,11439,873631,00.html]), The Financial Times ([http://search.ft.com/searchArticle?id=010731013262]),the RAF ([http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/index.html]), the British Army ([http://www.army.mod.uk/para/history/the_falklands_islands.htm]) and the Navy ([http://www.navynews.co.uk/falklands/index.asp]). --[[User:Dweller|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. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I suppose then that it's irrelevant how the British armed forces refer to it. --[[User:Dweller|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 [[User:GraemeLeggett|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 [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Falklands+Conflict%22+-%22Falklands+War%22+site%3Awww.timesonline.co.uk "Falklands Conflict" is used 91 times without "Falklands War"] where as [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=-%22Falklands+Conflict%22+%22Falklands+War%22+site%3Awww.timesonline.co.uk "Falklands War" is used 264 times without "Falklands Confict"]. The Sun (hardly a ''good'' source) [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=-%22Falklands+Conflict%22+%22Falklands+War%22+site%3Awww.thesun.co.uk "Falklands War" 174 times without "Falklands Conflict"] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Falklands+Conflict%22+-%22Falklands+War%22+site%3Awww.thesun.co.uk Falklands Conflict '''3''' times without Falklands War]. The Telegraph [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Falklands+Conflict%22+-%22Falklands+War%22+site%3Awww.telegraph.co.uk Falklands Conflict without Falklands War 169 times] and [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=-%22Falklands+Conflict%22+%22Falklands+War%22+site%3Awww.telegraph.co.uk "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" [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=-%22Falklands+Conflict%22+%22Falklands+War%22+site%3A*.mod.uk]. NavyNews is split about 40/30 in favour of "Conflict". "Falklands War" is clearly the most commonly used term. [[User:Megapixie|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. --[[User:Dweller|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. --[[User:Imaglang|Neigel von Teighen]] 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Neutrality == |
|||
it lists [[Falklands_War#The_end_of_the_war|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. <small><span style="border: 1px solid green; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Codu|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Codu </span>''']][[User talk:Codu|<span style="background-color:green; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px"> talk </span>]][[Special:Contributions/Codu|<span style="background-color:green; color:white"> contribs </span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Codu|<span style="background-color:green; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px"> email </span>]]</span></small> 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. [[User:Necessary Evil|Necessary Evil]] 11:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Question regarding MI6 activity== |
|||
If I remember correctly, John Nott disclosed / claimed in his memoirs that during the war MI6 bought up open-market stocks of Exocets through front companies, and that their operatives sabotaged other Exocets that were available for sale. Anybody know any more about this? Regards, [[User:Notreallydavid|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.[[User:ALR|ALR]] 08:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Much obliged. [[User:Notreallydavid|Notreallydavid]] 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Ascension == |
|||
The main British airbase was at Ascension, correct? Could a picture be placed in the article so people know where it is in relation to Las Malvinas? [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Edit: because it is still rather far away, isn't it? [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:To where, sorry? <_< |
|||
::According to England, Falkland Islands. [[User:Fephisto|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. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] 01:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== 1976 warning == |
|||
Documents released under the [[Thirty year rule]] show that [[Harold Wilson]]'s governement was warned of possible invasion in 1976[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6213121.stm]. I think this should go in the article. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Reverts == |
|||
I'm a bit annoyed. I spent a few hours working on the page, but most of my changes have been removed - without discussion or comment - by BadWolf42. I don't spend my time here for the effort I put in to be thrown away by someone who happens to disagree with me but doesn't have the decency to actually explain why and justify his views. [[User:Toby Douglass|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) |
|||
== 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. |
|||
[[User:Toby Douglass|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.[[User:WikipedianProlific|WikipedianProlific]][[User_Talk:WikipedianProlific|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 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. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:BadWolf42|BadWolf42]] ([[User talk:BadWolf42|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BadWolf42|contribs]]) 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
== 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 [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_las_Malvinas 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. [[User:Astrotrain|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. [[User:Fephisto|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. [[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Internationally rejected, yes: [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights] ; [http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm 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 . --[[User:Jor70|Jor70]] 12:36, 8 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, [[User:SqueakBox|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) |
|||
I changed the es version [http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guerra_de_las_Malvinas&diff=6367723&oldid=6308391 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, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==So flaklanders dislike Argentina?== |
|||
''(moved by BadWolf42)'' |
|||
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? |
|||
—[[User:Argentino|Argentino]] <small>([[User talk:Argentino|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Argentino|cont.]])</small> 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. [[User:Luis Dantas|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) |
Latest revision as of 12:41, 25 May 2024
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Probably unimportant, but "Guerra de *las* Malvinas"?
I am 32 years old, from Buenos Aires, and I'm yet to hear or read a native Spanish speaker include the plural feminine article in the name of this armed conflict.
Looks to me as a bona fide mistake from someone who speaks Spanish as a second language, or it may just be a calc from their mother tongue.
Either way, somehow the offending article seems to have propagated even to the Spanish wiki.
Did anybody else think the inclusion of the article sounds rather awkward in Spanish? Cheers. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- What is it called in Argentina? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone here says "Guerra de Malvinas", but I also believe that's the case for every Spanish speaker.
- You would say "Las Malvinas" and "Las Islas Malvinas", but "Guerra de Malvinas" without the article. Articles are confusing, I know, but including it in this case is something I'd expect maybe from a Ukrainian (as they omit many that are required and insert some where they don't belong), but never from a native speaker. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- And it's not just a matter every-day speech. Look at this, verbatim within an article of legislation, straight from the official archive:
- https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/50000-54999/50278/norma.htm 190.247.206.108 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Spanish Wikipedia uses [1] Guerra de las Malvinas, the Spanish translation was provided by our Argentine colleagues rather than it being a mistake by an English speaker. Because of silly edit wars we've had in the past I'd advise on holding off on any changes since the language guideline in MOS specifies current text, so a wider change in policy is required. @Cambalachero:, @Kahastok: I've pinged other editors as I'm currently taking a wikibreak due to family problems. You might get me via email and I will try to look in occasionally. WCMemail 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- In the original message I mentioned the awkwardness somehow propagated to the Spanish wiki. Also, the Spanish wiki suffers from a lack of adherence to rules and conventions of orthography and punctuation, and is gravely plagued by calcs and poor translations of the better produced English articles. In fact, you just have to take a look at the Spanish talk page on the war and you would see how much was borrowed from the English one to replace entire sections that were brief, biased by the influence of irredentist activists and had an absolute lack of eloquence. I’ll make the point to have it fixed there as well.
- I hope I explained myself better this time. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I also think silly edit wars shouldn’t stop us from having correct articles. I am ignorant, but I find it hard to believe someone will start a foolish edit war on account of replacing a weird calc with the proper expression that represents how all Spanish speakers (jurists included) actually talk. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- All interesting. I recall the debate about an indefinite article used by JFK, wrongly or rightly.[2] Also of interest, if you are correct, is how a simple error of fact, that at first sight looks plausible, can spread like wildfire and become ingrained into people's minds without question and is hard to change. Besides getting the opinion of native speakers I suppose we should get two or three examples from reliable secondary sources, which is the ultimate guide, not what Spanish speakers actually say. You have provided one source already, thanks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it wasn’t my intention to have my suggestion be accepted at face value. I saw this in your article and then I was surprised and definitely confused (made me question my sanity for an instant) when I found it was the same in Spanish, with also every Romance language wikis having a literal word by word translation (although in most cases the article is included in a contraction with the preposition - delle, das, etc). I wanted to make sure I’m not the only one that finds that phrase odd. Also, first ever attempt to change the wiki; so sorry.
- I’ll get a couple sources more and get back to you later. Thanks for your attention. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was also wondering what’s the point in providing an awkward translation to the language of the other side if it doesn’t match the actual vernacular expression? Even if it was the case that in Spain it sounded natural, it’s off and better left out. Argentines of every walk of life absolutely leave the definite article out, I just need to gather sources or get the attention of my countrymen.
- But it is exactly like you said. How did such a simple error to catch get so far?
- My money is on hypercorrection by contagion from Romance languages that can contract the feminine article (maybe? - Spanish only contracts the masculine art.)
- Hopefully someone much wiser can shed some light. Thanks again. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- State-owned research institution:
- https://santafe.conicet.gov.ar/guerra-de-malvinas-39-anos/
- Fact-checking publication:
- https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/a-40-anos-de-la-guerra-de-malvinas-5-desinformaciones-que-circularon-durante-la-guerra/
- Federal government website:
- https://www.argentina.gob.ar/educacion/efemerides/2-abril-malvinas
- British media group:
- https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-60297592 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, this was the relevant BBC article:
- https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-61793378
- Institute of aviation instruction:
- http://www.eam.iua.edu.ar/eam/guerra-de-malvinas/
- National institute of geography:
- https://www.ign.gob.ar/content/40-a%C3%B1os-de-la-guerra-de-malvinas
- A might not be gone fishing after all. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Calc means calcium or calculator. What do you mean by it? B61:595B:C909|2A00:23C8:8FB1:F600:E09D:8B61:595B:C909 (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Probably means calque. Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- All interesting. I recall the debate about an indefinite article used by JFK, wrongly or rightly.[2] Also of interest, if you are correct, is how a simple error of fact, that at first sight looks plausible, can spread like wildfire and become ingrained into people's minds without question and is hard to change. Besides getting the opinion of native speakers I suppose we should get two or three examples from reliable secondary sources, which is the ultimate guide, not what Spanish speakers actually say. You have provided one source already, thanks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I also think silly edit wars shouldn’t stop us from having correct articles. I am ignorant, but I find it hard to believe someone will start a foolish edit war on account of replacing a weird calc with the proper expression that represents how all Spanish speakers (jurists included) actually talk. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Spanish Wikipedia uses [1] Guerra de las Malvinas, the Spanish translation was provided by our Argentine colleagues rather than it being a mistake by an English speaker. Because of silly edit wars we've had in the past I'd advise on holding off on any changes since the language guideline in MOS specifies current text, so a wider change in policy is required. @Cambalachero:, @Kahastok: I've pinged other editors as I'm currently taking a wikibreak due to family problems. You might get me via email and I will try to look in occasionally. WCMemail 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I've made the change. If it's wrong it can always be changed back again. Kahastok talk 21:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Infobox
The infobox has only the UK and Argentina as belligerents. I suggest that the Falkland Islands are added under the UK, with Rex Hunt added as a leader under the Falkland Islands flag. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Mobilization of the Federal Penitentiary Service during the war
Members of Argentina's Federal Penitentiary Service were mobilized when the war started. They were organized into an infantry company and attached to the XI Infantry Brigade, and nicknamed "black necks" due to their unique prison guard uniforms which the rest of the army didn't have. During the war they guarded strategic locations in and around Rio Gallegos against potential British commando raids. Would it be OK to mention this in the article, provided I find an acceptable source? I think its an interesting detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Federal_Penitentiary_Service Bob meade (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba for deletion
I have nominated the article Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba, which is related to this topic, for deletion. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba. Kahastok talk 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)