This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Points 5 to 9 are not events , also such change of an article merit some discuss first (IMHO) -- Jor70 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That is an error. Since 1965 South Africa no longer belongs to the Commonwealth and maintained close relations with the Argentine military regime. Even providing some equipment and weapons covertly. User: Alberto, 14/10/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.158.4 ( talk) 17:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The Soviet attitude towards the war is controversial. It would be worth noting in greater detail. All of the combatants involved were enemies of the USSR, but it seemed to be keeping tabs on it. -- MacRusgail 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest there are two names that are mentioned under this section. One the infamous Major Patricio Dowling of military intelligence who arrived with files on many islanders and is described as personalising the Argentine terror machine. Dowling was sent home in disgrace after mistreating several islanders. The other I would suggest is mentioned is Comodoro Carlos Bloomer Reeve who even the Islanders remember with affection and respect who was able to blunt the extremes of the military intelligence and had Major Dowling sent home in disgrace.
As currently written it doesn't reflect that whilst the Argentines largely behaved reasonably well and certain individuals (such as Bloomer Reeve) managed to demonstrate humanity in extreme circumstances, there were a number of abuses including those of Major Dowling , the internment of Islanders at Goose Green, certain individuals in Fox Bay, and the deportation of noted critics of Argentina. Justin A Kuntz 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure that is an accepted term? I've always seen it written as either the Islanders or Falkland Islanders. Justin A Kuntz 09:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Callaghan (British PM to '79) kept a nuclear sub down near the Falklands and made sure that the Junta knew about it. Thatcher got in, decided to save a few quid, and withdrew the sub. Another sign that the Junta would have taken to mean that the UK didn't really care about the Falklands. Now, if Thatcher had kept the sub down there in the first place, none of this would of happened.
So, a huge strategic cock-up by Thatcher ends up turning her into a hero, and getting her a second election victory (despite failing economic policies and 3 million unemployed at the time).
Guess that's why she doesn't mention it. What do you all think? Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like
- if you put your hand in a dog's mouth and it bites you, who's fault is it?
In the insurance industry they have a lovely term called "contributory negligence", so I think the choice of phrase "ultimately the decision to invade was Argentinian alone." is not quite accurate.
Additional it views things from a Western perspective, without taking into account the views and beliefs of the other side.
Can't think of the originator off hand, but it would be useful to remind oneself of the addage
History is written by the victors
So, back to the Falklands. In order to definitively dismiss the nuclear sub question, it would be necessary to know how many subs existed and where they were at what times. The MOD is unlikely to be very forthcoming with this info (I should know, I used to work for them - even inter-unit football results were "Restricted" information !!).
Furthermore, saying the decision was John Nott's doesn't really allow for the idea of cabinet government. No doubt the Treasury told him to save a few bob, so his choice was somewhat bounded. As the PM, Mrs. T could always have overuled him, if she had felt it to be a bad decision. So by not doing so, she accepts at least equal blame.
Thus, rather that dismiss my comment out of hand, and just quote from the Wikipedia entry, it might have been better to suggest that further evidence - preferably a "verifiable" source (even if the reference is only oblique) would move things forwards.
It is not for nothing that Wikipedia has a "verifiability before truth" clause.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
In the UK, if I left my door open, etc. my insurance company would try to refuse to pay out.
They put closing the door in the t&c's.
The courts also sometimes award damages of 1 pound over here ,too - means it it someone's fault, but the other person should have known better!
If I had some hot references, I would have already put them in.
But I see, you think there might have been a sub there too - sometimes "secret" moves are advertised -it is the basis of "gunboat diplomacy" that the other side knows you are there.
I would also remind you that we have not had a very good record with our intelligence chiefs - spot the one who ISN'T working for the Russians. So perhaps some people know more than they admit, too.
My data is not currently up to Wiki standards, which is why I am putting it here rather than blundering in to the articles. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
On the nuclear sub thing - bit more of a deterrent than a supply ship, methinks. Also, I repeat, a deterrent has to be known about by the other side (or, at least, they think they know about it) - otherwise it's not a deterrent. So there would be no point sending a "secret" sub unless it was meant to be used. I think perhaps a mention of the general rundown of the Navy could be added, too - I seem to remember it being necessary to "unsell" a (mini-) carrier to Australia (?). Without a decent Navy, it is very difficult to have overseas territories (British History before, say, 1550 demonstrates this, where the main overseas conflict was in a very close country over lands historically owned by a British monarch). Of course, this would have been clear to the Argentinians. Do you think that the withdrawal of a supply ship was a contributing factor, whereas the general rundown of the Royal Navy wasn't?
On the point of whether it was Mrs. T's fault, (irrespective of your interesting views on houses being robbed), I notice that the Operation Journeyman page implies that David Owen (never liked him, myself, but he is "notable") also thinks it was her fault, and the whole thing could have been avoided if she had acted differently. Sadly no reference on the page to support this. But nice to know that a "notable" agrees with me.
Don't know whether it should be more explicit in the Falklands War page, though, or whether it should be left for the reader to stumble across if they follow the link.
What say you?
Or anyone else
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
From the page for Southern Thule
This unwillingness to project force, plus the British Government's intention to cut back the British military presence in the Antarctic for financial reasons, led the Argentine Government to believe that they could successfully occupy and annex the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, which they attempted in April 1982, sparking the Falklands War.
Looks like someone else thinking along my lines.
So, should a bit more to it than just withdrawing a supply ship.
If I remember, there were 6 marines on south georgia (?) - not sure about this.
I think it was 25 on the Falklands.
There was at least one Argentinian living on the main island at the time -some sort of liason bod (perhaps).
So the Argentinians would have known how "well" defended the islands were.
31 soldiers on a territory next to someone who wants it very badly - that sounds like criminal neglect.
As an aside, I think Argentina still claims the Falklands, and I am fairly sure if you fly from there to Argentina, they don't do passport control because they like to pretend it is a domestic (rather than international) flight.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
please read the entry above that one too.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Visitors travelling from or via South America can connect with the LAN flight from Santiago, Chile, via Puerto Montt and Punta Arenas to the Falklands operating every Saturday. Once a month, usually on the second Saturday, on departing Punta Arenas, the flight calls at Rio Gallegos, Argentina. The return flight from Stanley via Rio Gallegos occurs one week later.
That's what is says on the "Falkland Islands" web page. Either I've read that wrong, or that's a flight from Argentina to the Falklands and back. (operated by a Chilean airline) Just accessed it 2 minutes ago.
As I said before, the Argentinians don't stamp the passports because they consider it an internal flight. Remember what I said about points of view before.
Perhaps the Falkland Islanders don't like the Argentinians because of cultural background - they like to drive on the (technically superior) British side of the road. They are used to speaking the (extremely flexible - one of the largest vocabularies, and expanding) English language.
If someone told me I would have to speak another lingo in my home country, I wouldn't be best pleased either - look at the welsh, basques etc. etc.
.
So, who is to blame for what you call the trip wire policy - or is that the Argentinian's fault too?
Also, anyone want to comment on David Owen's remark - was it all Thatcher's fault - back to where I came in?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Britain isn't technically a democracy anyway - it's a constitutional monarchy (with an unwritten constitution - I couldn't make it up!!)
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, your figure of 80 troops is composed of 69 marines (double strength), and 11 RN personel on a survey vessel.
So, if 69 is double strength, my figure of 31, which would have been reported to Argentina before the Invasion force set out, would have been pretty close (possibly) for the standing garrison. Not bad for a 25 year memory.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 09:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
1)a) The History Channel on their website say it was 69 marines and 11 RN personnel on the Endurance - are you saying they are wrong, or just misleading?
1)b) Was the unit at complement strength? That far away, any marines who had to be withdrawn may not have been replaced, assuming the unit was full strength at the start. Also politician love doing odd things for odd reasons. e.g Hitler increased the number of panzer divisions he had by only equipping each with two-thirds of it's complement of tanks - looked good on paper to say he had such a large number of divisions. Not sure if any division every reached full panzer strength, certainly most didn't.
Do you have a different source? If I know yours, I can expand my knowledge (never a bad thing).
2)a) Blame - another WP page (mentioned above) says that basically it was Thatcher's fault. Do you say that the other WP page needs to be corrected?
2)b) As demonstrated, it is hard for it to be the Labour Party's fault, as they "backed it up" with military force - it was the failure to "back it up" that was the real problem, don't you think.
3)a) The Islanders can consider the Argentine behaviour to be anything they want. Unprofessional way of expressing that feeling, I would have thought, have no place here - think how I would feel if I was reading this as an Argentinian - would I feel that you are giving both sides an equal airing?
3)b) Since Argentina are a sovereign nation, are they not free to set their immigration policy pretty much as they wish?
4)a) Perhaps more mention should be made of the general run down of the fleet - I would have thought a more "encouraging" reason to the Junta than moving one little ship around.
4)b) Any news on the nuclear sub? Or will this have to wait for history to tell it's tale?
5) So you don't think the driving and language thing has anything to do with the Islanders' dislike of Argentina?
6) Did we try to sell any ships shortly before the crisis - I remember us having to "un-sell" one.
That should be enough - than I will work up a draft "edit", and then see what you all think before applying it.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 13:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, that comes across as more than a little aggressive. I suggest you go and re-read what I'd written first.
NP8901 was at full strength a party of 40 Royal Marine Commandos including officers and NCO. As the change over happened in April, then there was co-incidentally a double strength at the time of the invasion. However, in response to the landings on South Georgia, a party of Royal Marines was detached from NP8901 and sent to South Georgia on HMS Endurance. 11 Sailors were left behind to make room for the RM, these were hydrographers and so weren't needed to keep the ship running. So at the time of the invasion there were 69 marines and 11 sailors in Stanley.
2a That page says The foreign secretary at the time David Owen later claimed that if Margaret Thatcher's government had taken similarly quick action five years later, the Argentinians would not have invaded in 1982 leading to the Falklands War. Reporting an opinion of a notable politician is fine, expressing your own in article is I suggest somewhat different.
2b See above.
3a Well, this is a talk page not an article for starters. I see nothing wrong in what I've written, even a neutral observer would see many of the things that the Argentine Government does to assert its claims as petty and in many ways counter productive.
3b Yes, they are. The point being that certain officials take it upon themselves to abuse their position and don't actually implement Argentina's own published policy.
4a I'm not sure that would necessarily be relevant, the main thing that frightened the Argentine Navy was the threat of a nuclear sub. Which BTW were not routinely deployed in the South Atlantic. The withdrawal of Endurance sent the message the British weren't interested. To a certain extent that was the case, the Foreign Office considered the Falklands a nuisance, something to be gotten rid off.
4b I'm not immediately sure what point you're making here. If you're referring to 1976. Well on the British side the Callaghan Government allegedly deployed a sub and leaked the news to Argentina. The Argentine Government maintains they knew nothing and had no plans to invade. However, Lombardo who planned Operation Azul (later renamed Operation Rosario) indicates it was one of his primary concerns in 1982 and that Anaya's plans to invaded in the '70s had been thwarted by the deployment of a sub. So the balance of the evidence for Operation Journeyman indicates its probably true. Now in 1982, you may remember that the news of the departure of a sub (HMS Splendid) was leaked, it is credited as one of the reasons for Argentina bringing forward the operation. The story goes that the MOD were trying to repeat the success of Operation Journeyman in thwarting earlier plans but it ended up as counter-productive since the Argentines acted to invade before the sub could arrive.
5 There were many reasons the Islanders had for disliking the Argentine occupation. The mess they made of the place, the stories of soldiers defecating in people's houses, forcing them to drive on the "wrong" side, making Spanish the official language, the activities of Military Intelligence and in particular the rather sinister Major Dowling. However, it should also be noted that men like Carlos Bloomer-Reeve and Major Hussey behaved with great integrity and humanity, both are still regarded with affection by the Islanders even today.
6 We'd sold HMS Invincible to Australia in 1981 to replace HMAS Melbourne, they graciously withdrew from the sale after the war. I'm not sure its relevant. Has the Argentines waited a few months it is true that we simple couldn't have retaken the Islands. The critical ships we needed would have been sold off or scrapped. A smart commander would have waited for their adversaries capability to reduce before acting. So they were either dumb or didn't take it into account.
Feel free to made a draft edit but I suggest you read some of the guidelines first. In particular consider that Wikipedia exists to produce an encylopedia, what you're proposing sounds like an opinion piece. It maybe perhaps pertinent to do an edit and then a self-revert to show what you intend to change. Justin A Kuntz 15:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The Royal Navy states that 85 marines were involved in the defense of South Georgia and the Falklands.
Another source states that the Endurance carried 9 marines from NP9801 (in addition to its complement of 13, including one officer.), giving a total of 22 on South Georgia.
The same source gives the figure of 67 for the Falkland islands, but it is not clear if this includes Major Norman and Major Noott. Additionally, Jim Airfield (spelt quite differently in another source), an ex-Royal Marine Corporal, who had moved to the Falklands, appears to have joined them, been issued with weaponry, and fought along side them.
That source agree with the figure of 2 officers and nine men from Endurance being in Stanley (i.e. 11)
So the total strength of NP9801 would appear to have been 76 or 78 (depending whether the 67 listed as available to Governor Hunt included the two Majors or not (my own guess is that it would have).
The WP page on the invasion says there were 57 marines and 11 RN sailors on the Falklands, and an additional 22 sent to South Georgia. Presumably this would have been NP9801 plus the complement of 13 attached to the Endurance, implying that the "double strength" NP9801 would have had about 66 members. Another User has repeatedly stated above that there were 80 marines.
The RAF, just to muddy the waters further, states on their website that 43 men from "new" NP8901, 25 from the "old" party, and 12 sailors were on the Falklands, with 9 further marines from the "old" party being sent to south Georgia.
So, take your pick - somewhere between 57 and 70 marines (including officers) plus 11 or 12 personnel from the Endurance on Stanley. Generally seems to be 22 going to South Georgia (9 from the Naval Party + 13 attached to Endurance), giving an overall figure of 77 to 92 marines in total. Perhaps the 85 figure from the Royal Navy has not counted sme who were not involved in the fighting.
Oh, the fog of war !
So, to summarise, there seems to be some doubt over the exact number of personnel involved.
Certainly it is hard to say that the Royal Navy and the RAF are not reputable sources of information.
Perhaps there will always be a variety of versions of what went on, if sources can't even agree on simple things such as how many marines there were.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 13:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Another reference. Lady Thatcher, April 14th 1982, speech to Parliament, mentions 22 marines on South Georgia.
Presumably the 13 which seem to have been attached to the survey ship. Plus 9 from the Naval Party.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The title pretty much says it.
When is the start of the "Falklands War"?
- the "scrap merchants" land on South Georgia?
- the departure of the Argentine Invasion fleet from the mainland?
- the Invasion?
- the reaction (to send a fleet)?
- the actual fleet departing?
- the Bombing raid?
- the fleet arriving in the Falklands?
- some other point?
The end seems more clear, but what of the beginning
TIA
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is where the tags say to discuss this, so I'll start the discussion.
Background to the Falklands War was prodded by Justin A Kuntz. Leithp deprodded it this afternoon, suggesting a merge instead. I was going to edit that page and leave some comments on the prod/merge in the edit summary, but I decided commenting here made more sense, to encourage some discussion.
Aside the extra detail on the Argentine régime that the Background article goes into (mostly the Argentine economic situation that lead to the war), I think everything in that article is more accurately and more substantially covered at Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, an article which has also had a lot more scrutiny. It strikes me that there is little point in merging anything from the Background article into this aside that information. Info from the British side could be summarised from the Sovereignty article. The background article should then be a redirect, not here but to the Sovereignty article. Pfainuk talk 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The "Landings on South Georgia" section says:
It seems odd to me that he would say "was" - surely he said "invasion is not imminent". I'd change this to "invasion [was] not imminent" to make it fit the context grammatically while indicating that it's not the original wording, but I don't actually know what the original wording was, because there's no citation of its source. Can anyone fix this? Hairy Dude ( talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:JKirkpatrickpbs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a wrong paragraph here, there are plenty of books and interviews where this is sourced. Constantino Davidoff workers, which were explicity authorized by UK, landed March 19 from the ARA Bahia Buen Suceso. The workers raised the Argentinian flag on their camp, the same way they did on December 1981 when they first go there with ARA Alte Irizar to check the abandoned installations. However, this second time, the British media reaction between the 20th and 23 was very important and tension go quickly high after the Foreign Office requested passports to be stamped which if accepted would establish a precedent and was not something requested by the UK signed contract. Therefore on March 24th its was ordered to the ARA Bahia Paraiso, which was at Orcadas at the time, to land ARA party lead by Astiz (which BTW was not part of any special forces but Intelligence) to "protect" or whatever Davidoff workers. The Astiz group was originally intended to establish a station in Georgias the same way they did on Thule years before but their mission was suspended on February due the Davidoff campaign. Anaya (ARA chief of staff)'s Operacion Rosario (planned to may be late 82 or 1983) was to be executed much earlier than expected if they want to have some kind of success because after the Georgias incident the Junta suspected the British garrison would be reinforced. Points 7-8 of this article seems nothing to do with "Events leading ..." but with the War itself -- Jor70 ( talk) 21:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
correct procedure on the return when he visited the British embassy to apologise, he promised they would visit the BAS station to get the passports stamped but they didn't. There are plenty of Argentine sources who will tell a contrary story but they are usually spouting Argentine Government propaganda. The facts are that Astiz's party embarked and landed with the scrap men, using Davidoff's party as a cover, they paraded in uniform, raised the flag and were observed by the BAS doing so, they also knew the correct procedure to follow before landing and deliberately and provocatively refused to do so, despite assurances to the contrary. They were not there to "protect" Argentine scrap workers, they were there as part of Operation Alpha to establish a presence on South Georgia. Justin talk 21:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
unindent
Regarding Davidoff's party, "infiltrated on board, pretending to be scientists, were members of an Argentine naval special forces unit" Nick van der Bijl, Nine Battles to Stanley, London, Leo Cooper P.8 as reported in Lawrence Freemdman, The Official History of the Falklands Camapign: Vol I The Origins of the Falklands War
"Bahia Buen Suceso set sail for South Georgia on 11 March carrying Argentine Marines" Rowland White, Vulcan 607, London, Bantam Press, p30.
"The Argentine Navy certainly knew the rules for the islands; these were part of the navigation code" Lawrence Freedmand and Virgina Gamba-Stonehouse, Signals of War, London, Faber and Fa ber P.47. This is an Anglo-Argentine book. It also reports how the BAS reported men in uniform, the official British notices on the islands regarding landings defaced, the customs house broken into, emergency supplies looted and the men were shooting Reindeer despite them being a protected species - and being illegal to land with firearms without permission. Not to mention the fact that the ship sailed in radio silence; nobody sails in radio silence in these waters unless their intentions are not entirely peaceful. Ships report icebergs, weather reports etc.
My apologies about one thing, you were correct that Astiz did not arrive in Leith until 24th March on ARA Bahia Paraiso but his troops were actually re-inforcements, they did this while HMS Endurance's mission had been postponed to avoid a confrontation. Freedman indicates that the decision to send RFA Fort Austin to replenish HMS Endurance wasn't taken till March 29. The erroneous story reported about HMS Superb appeared on the ITN news on the 30th March. Two nuclear submarines were dispatched on March 29, HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan.
Although she sailed on March 21 HMS Endurance was ordered to hold off and didn't land Royal Marine party on South Georgia until March 31, nearly a week after Astiz's landing. A small party had been on-shore and had observed the landings of the Argentine military.
The decision to invade was taken on March 26, so it is difficult to see how these events had any material influence on the decision. If the Argentine Junta misunderstood the British intentions that does not excuse their actions. The facts are that the Argentine landing on March 19 was needlessly provocative, the British response very low key. And the British press were not hysterical about the landings on South Georgia, it barely rated a footnote in most papers. Its also completely fatuous to claim Britain ratcheted up the tension over this incident, it was used by the Argentine Junta as an excuse to invade and they were responsible for the provocative acts that raised tensions in the first place. Justin talk 10:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Jor70 ( talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
yes very poor intel, but is a fact that Superb move was crucial in rushing Op Azul. Also a fact is that Astiz group was not in Georgias March 19 and arrived March 24 after diplomatic and media (the last one on the Junta view) escalation. Raising the flag was also did Dec 20, 1981 when the first group landed from Alte Irizar and no reaction was at that time. Additional military personal other than the crew is only given by British sources. The fact that Davidoff used ARA Bahia Buen Suceso because British authorities denied the use of the HMS Endurance to haul the metal away. I think all this should be mentioned --
Jor70 (
talk) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
of course, I not dismissing the British sources, I only said that to show a more balanced point of view there are some factually incorrect facts that that should be mentioned here, such as (I repeat them again ... )
-- Jor70 ( talk) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Justin, you continue to missed the point. Back to my original post: The Argentine position is not spec forces were MARCH 19 on ARA Bahia buen Suceso: I already explained twice what Lombardo said (can you please tell me your source ISBN or whatever). Astiz (and grupo alfa) were sent March 24 on ARA Bahia Paraiso (You see, Im never denied their existence). HMS Endurance (as ARA Transportes Navales Co) were hireable ships in 1982. You continue to be exalted against dark intentions to change to whole article when I only intended to create a consensus here of something more that just the British view of the events (which BTW, before you start again, Im not against your british sources). --
Jor70 (
talk) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
1. I have provided sources to back up what I said, you have not.
2. You have not explained anywhere what Lombardo said.
3. For the third or more time of pointing this out to you - IT IS NOT JUST A BRITISH VIEW OF THE EVENTS but a NPOV version. ONE OF THE AUTHORS I QUOTED IS ARGENTINE. And I only use block capitals because of a repeated failure to acknowledge what is said to you.
4. Sources provided back up the version of events where Argentine military personnel were landed on MARCH 19, they used Davidoff's party as a cover. In return you have provided NOTHING but claims that the article is somehow biased.
5. HMS Endurance was not for hire in 1982.
6. About the only slightly incorrect version of events is that Astiz didn't land till March 24, the rest is correct. However, you're proposing an edit that claims that Britain escalated events and that cause the Argentine Junta to invade the Falkland Islands. That is unacceptable because it does not fit the facts, it reflects a biased POV to excuse the actions of the Argentine Junta.
7. I have patiently explained why the edit you're proposing is unacceptable. You are persisting in an assumption of bad faith in my reasons for doing so. That I find increasingly unacceptable.
Justin
talk 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You see Justin, after all this talk, the current version
[3] is FAR more accurate as IMHO I suggested in my first post --
Jor70 (
talk) 20:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Justin A Kuntz summarily deleted my tabular input on the merchant ships of the task force to retake the Falklands. I shall attempt to integrate the material into British naval forces in the Falklands War. I was a bit surprised to have my contribution reverted without discussion, but I can see (belatedly) I have entered a realm of strong feelings of ownership (like the islands themselves, I suppose). It took me some time to find a more appropriate location for the STUFT data, and I suggest those who feel entitled to control changes to this article might consider adding one or more "main article" links to the articles of the forces involved. Such links might help preserve the format so carefully cultivated here. Thewellman ( talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanna say I totally agree with Justin's decision here. The article already briefly mentions the STUFT ships. Also there's a more detailed list here, but if u wanted to expand that section i.e. add some sentences. That's be totally awesome ;) Ryan4314 ( talk) 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't this page part of the Falklands War page? I am aware that it would make one long page, but that's not a reason to split it by itself... Spettro9 ( talk) 06:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor removed the cover of Newsweek with the "Empire strikes back" headline. It's claimed to be a violation of WP:FU. I however disagree since the text doesn't convey the "spirit of the time" as the image + headline. I'm not convinced that it's a violation of WP:FU. Let's start a debate here. --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The article repeatedly mentions BAS and says nothing about what BAS is. I came here to ask, and found it buried in a long discussion above. I added it to the article. Nick Beeson ( talk) 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Galtieri.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Galtieri.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC) |
I suggest a split in the bottom third of the article. It doesn't so much talk about the events leading up to the war, as much as it does the positions of other countries and international organizations. I think a split off of "International participation..." or something of that nature would be more appropriate.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 00:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I have updated two sections, the US response and the French, both edits reflect quite recent source material and one has been reverted on the grounds that it is 'POV'. I am more than happy to further edit to reach consensus, however, the edits do reflect the gist of the material, regards. Twobells ( talk) 15:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Edit, another revert, on the grounds that the edit was 'POV' when the edit reflected the source material which included the word 'betrayal' in the lede. However, for the sake of neutrality I have re-worded the edit to satisfy the usual US-Centric suspects, regards. Twobells ( talk) 15:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: this edit. Ignoring the bit at the top corrected by the editor in question.
The first point is left completely unsourced. The wording gives the impression that such a compromise was in Haig's gift, that Haig could somehow have imposed a compromise that favoured Argentina. Patently he could not and did not. What the WSJ source says is quite different. What it says is that the Haig proposals in the Shuttle Diplomacy favoured Argentina. The source then flatly contradicts the thrust of the edit by pointing out that the NSC's response was to come out in favour of Britain.This comment was originally part of a single comment by Kahastok talk 22:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC), continued below
The second part, re: South Georgia. It seems to me that the key point here is that Haig made this proposal to the British ambassador. The proposed text very much gives the impression that Haig was planning on stabbing the British in the back. Far from it, he actually put the proposal to the British government and then abandoned it when the British objected.
Both points are made in a paragraph currently discussing a UNSC veto made several weeks after either event. Kahastok talk 22:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Really. [5] Ref this edit, the edit is dubious and problematic for the way its put together.
The article actually states:
“ | Francois Heisbourg, who at the time was international security adviser to the French Minister of Defence, Charles Hernu, insists that his government did not know that the technical team was there. But, he says, the fact that it evidently was is inexcusable.
"It is now undeniable and... one should not belittle it. This was not what was supposed to be done. It is the sort of thing which mars what should otherwise have been picture-perfect co-operation between the two countries," he says. But not all in the French government were in the dark about the technical team's presence in Argentina during the conflict. Pierre Lethier, former chief of staff of the DGSE - the French equivalent of Britain's foreign intelligence agency MI6 and signal intelligence headquarters GCHQ - admits that his department did know about them. "This is what intelligence is for. You need sources. We had difficulties to penetrate the Argentinian army at that time during the Falklands conflict. So, the more helpers you have the better you are," he says. Lethier told me that the DGSE had an informer among the members of the technical team who was able to give them some information about what the Argentinian military was doing. But he is fiercely critical of the French team for the technical help it gave. "It's bordering on an act of treason, or disobedience to an embargo," he says. "I mean, it's clear that if the head of state in France decrees an embargo, it's an embargo. Full point." |
” |
Best you can make of that is he was aware of some things the team were allegedly doing. You write:
“ | Whereas French government advisers of the time deny having had knowledge of the technical team's presence, Pierre Lethier, a former chief of staff in DGSE, later admitted his organisation was aware of the team's work[dubious – discuss],[35] leading to claims in both the British and French media that the French had 'played both sides'[36] with the British Defense Secretary Sir John Nott going as so far as stating, "We asked Mitterrand not to give assistance to the Argentinians. If you're asking me: 'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been." | ” |
The assertion he knew exactly what they were doing is not sustainable. In addition, the way the whole sentence is constructive is classic cherry picking. You may as well have written, and I paraphrase, "The French claim they knew nothing but they're lying bastards as this guy knew".
In addition, you've a paragraph in which you cram in a quote that is derogatory to the French, simply because you can source it, does not mean you can cherry pick it out of context and cram it in there. Your edits reflect a strong nationalistic bias and that is an anathema to wikipedia. And the above is just one example.
And you don't address the problem with your edits, you ignore the points put to you, you simply repeat the phrase "non-contentious, reliably-sourced material" as it were an answer. Newsflash: it isn't. W C M email 00:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I tapped out a similar objection for the other paragraph, but decided not to post it (yet) to avoid getting WP:TLDR, so I will summarise. The whole thing reads as though the author is trying to divine from the source an Evil American Plot that was foiled by the British Ambassador. In doing this it stretches the source beyond breaking point. Moreover, it seems to confuse the two sources that Twobells cited earlier (the WSJ and Telegraph). It is not at all clear that Twobells has realised that those two sources are discussing completely different documents and completely different proposals. Kahastok talk 10:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, I am always more than happy to alter the text to reach consensus as long as the final edit reflects the source material.
Moving on, you are once again making accusations founded, with respect on suspect conjecture, assuming the worse possible motivations, which I have to say lacks good faith, a behavior, which has been singly obvious to all in your dealings with me. The actual reason I added the quote was an attempt to bring the article into consensus following your statement that you believed the source material did not reflect what I had written, irrespective of the fact that other editors believed it was fair and neutral, so I thought it best to actually quote from the article directly, but oh no, you now find something wrong with that, again assuming the worst motivations. With good faith in mind, I have a faint suspicion following your edits here that you do not like what the primary,secondary and tertiary source material says and believe you have the right to remove it irrespective of the fact that, (here we go once again) the articles and books are non-contentious, reliably-sourced reference material. In reference to yet another critique, once again you are conjecturing what authors were thinking or doing, in that, 'my edit reflects a strong nationalistic bias', the problem with that argument is that we can only be guided by the source material and what is contained therein which my edits reflected. In closing, what I would like to do is ask you to write a few sentences here which you believe effectively reflects the source material and then we can all see for ourselves whether the text has reached consensus as plainly you refuse to accept my edits irrespective of the numerous good faith, re-writes I had made, best wishes. Twobells ( talk) 13:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Twobells, I count four times now on this page, plus at least one on your talk page and one at WP:ANEW, you have declared that the reason editors object to your proposed changes is that they dislike your conclusions. And that doesn't count the times when you've accused editors of writing according to agendas. Each occurrence is an accusation of bad faith. It seems to me that you have no real right to complain if you feel people are not assuming your good faith, given your persistent failure to assume anyone else's good faith.
I have not yet seen as explanation as to why this particular source material has to be included in this article at all. It's question that needs to be answered. On the French aspect, there is nothing clearly relevant to this article at all - it is far from clear the fact that there was a French team in Buenos Aires was in any sense led to the Falklands War.
And the other point. If Twobells thinks this is an uncontentious reflection of the source, I wonder if he has read the source. In about five minutes of comparison between the four proposed sentences and the source, I found eight fairly major differences, where the text says or implies something that the source does not back. Some are subtle, some are blatant. Any single one of these would put me in the "oppose" camp when finding consensus. And that's without the tone of the text as a whole, which creates a narrative - as I say, it implies an Evil American Plot to sell the British down the river - which is simply not present in the source.
Now, I'm not quite sure why I'm writing this. If past form is anything to go by, the response will be another accusation of bad faith and yet another repeat of "non-contentious, reliably-sourced reference material". Would people prefer it if I stopped bothering trying to help and just said "Oppose per above unanswered arguments" at every iteration that fails to meet my concerns? I must admit I do not see that it would make a whole lot of difference to our likelihood of actually getting consensus for anything. Kahastok talk 16:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
References
With the charge that some edits do not refer to events leading to the Falklands War then perhaps we need to remove certain sections entirely as some are referring directly to post-war events, thoughts? Twobells ( talk) 14:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is Lami Dozo's name preceded by "[sic]"? It appears in precisely that form several times in this article, and also in the linked article. 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 14:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Events leading to the Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the "Argentine Intentions" is nearly WORD FOR WORD plagiarized from a book titled RAF Strike Command 1968-2007: Aircraft, Men and Action. The book was written by Kev Darling.
I admittedly do not know how to put citations into Wikipedia, but if someone else does, please look into this. We should give credit where it is due.
-Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.122.2 ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
By way of slight apology to other editors, I edited the title of a book used as a reference in the article, giving it its full name. Somehow it turned into this [6] strange edit that looks more like vandalism or a test edit. I do not know how this happened, but I just wanted to let other editors know that the edit was not done by me, in case anyone thinks it was. I cannot see how it edit could have happened, even accidentally. Thanks to Jessicapierce for reverting it. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Points 5 to 9 are not events , also such change of an article merit some discuss first (IMHO) -- Jor70 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That is an error. Since 1965 South Africa no longer belongs to the Commonwealth and maintained close relations with the Argentine military regime. Even providing some equipment and weapons covertly. User: Alberto, 14/10/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.158.4 ( talk) 17:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The Soviet attitude towards the war is controversial. It would be worth noting in greater detail. All of the combatants involved were enemies of the USSR, but it seemed to be keeping tabs on it. -- MacRusgail 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest there are two names that are mentioned under this section. One the infamous Major Patricio Dowling of military intelligence who arrived with files on many islanders and is described as personalising the Argentine terror machine. Dowling was sent home in disgrace after mistreating several islanders. The other I would suggest is mentioned is Comodoro Carlos Bloomer Reeve who even the Islanders remember with affection and respect who was able to blunt the extremes of the military intelligence and had Major Dowling sent home in disgrace.
As currently written it doesn't reflect that whilst the Argentines largely behaved reasonably well and certain individuals (such as Bloomer Reeve) managed to demonstrate humanity in extreme circumstances, there were a number of abuses including those of Major Dowling , the internment of Islanders at Goose Green, certain individuals in Fox Bay, and the deportation of noted critics of Argentina. Justin A Kuntz 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure that is an accepted term? I've always seen it written as either the Islanders or Falkland Islanders. Justin A Kuntz 09:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Callaghan (British PM to '79) kept a nuclear sub down near the Falklands and made sure that the Junta knew about it. Thatcher got in, decided to save a few quid, and withdrew the sub. Another sign that the Junta would have taken to mean that the UK didn't really care about the Falklands. Now, if Thatcher had kept the sub down there in the first place, none of this would of happened.
So, a huge strategic cock-up by Thatcher ends up turning her into a hero, and getting her a second election victory (despite failing economic policies and 3 million unemployed at the time).
Guess that's why she doesn't mention it. What do you all think? Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like
- if you put your hand in a dog's mouth and it bites you, who's fault is it?
In the insurance industry they have a lovely term called "contributory negligence", so I think the choice of phrase "ultimately the decision to invade was Argentinian alone." is not quite accurate.
Additional it views things from a Western perspective, without taking into account the views and beliefs of the other side.
Can't think of the originator off hand, but it would be useful to remind oneself of the addage
History is written by the victors
So, back to the Falklands. In order to definitively dismiss the nuclear sub question, it would be necessary to know how many subs existed and where they were at what times. The MOD is unlikely to be very forthcoming with this info (I should know, I used to work for them - even inter-unit football results were "Restricted" information !!).
Furthermore, saying the decision was John Nott's doesn't really allow for the idea of cabinet government. No doubt the Treasury told him to save a few bob, so his choice was somewhat bounded. As the PM, Mrs. T could always have overuled him, if she had felt it to be a bad decision. So by not doing so, she accepts at least equal blame.
Thus, rather that dismiss my comment out of hand, and just quote from the Wikipedia entry, it might have been better to suggest that further evidence - preferably a "verifiable" source (even if the reference is only oblique) would move things forwards.
It is not for nothing that Wikipedia has a "verifiability before truth" clause.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
In the UK, if I left my door open, etc. my insurance company would try to refuse to pay out.
They put closing the door in the t&c's.
The courts also sometimes award damages of 1 pound over here ,too - means it it someone's fault, but the other person should have known better!
If I had some hot references, I would have already put them in.
But I see, you think there might have been a sub there too - sometimes "secret" moves are advertised -it is the basis of "gunboat diplomacy" that the other side knows you are there.
I would also remind you that we have not had a very good record with our intelligence chiefs - spot the one who ISN'T working for the Russians. So perhaps some people know more than they admit, too.
My data is not currently up to Wiki standards, which is why I am putting it here rather than blundering in to the articles. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
On the nuclear sub thing - bit more of a deterrent than a supply ship, methinks. Also, I repeat, a deterrent has to be known about by the other side (or, at least, they think they know about it) - otherwise it's not a deterrent. So there would be no point sending a "secret" sub unless it was meant to be used. I think perhaps a mention of the general rundown of the Navy could be added, too - I seem to remember it being necessary to "unsell" a (mini-) carrier to Australia (?). Without a decent Navy, it is very difficult to have overseas territories (British History before, say, 1550 demonstrates this, where the main overseas conflict was in a very close country over lands historically owned by a British monarch). Of course, this would have been clear to the Argentinians. Do you think that the withdrawal of a supply ship was a contributing factor, whereas the general rundown of the Royal Navy wasn't?
On the point of whether it was Mrs. T's fault, (irrespective of your interesting views on houses being robbed), I notice that the Operation Journeyman page implies that David Owen (never liked him, myself, but he is "notable") also thinks it was her fault, and the whole thing could have been avoided if she had acted differently. Sadly no reference on the page to support this. But nice to know that a "notable" agrees with me.
Don't know whether it should be more explicit in the Falklands War page, though, or whether it should be left for the reader to stumble across if they follow the link.
What say you?
Or anyone else
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
From the page for Southern Thule
This unwillingness to project force, plus the British Government's intention to cut back the British military presence in the Antarctic for financial reasons, led the Argentine Government to believe that they could successfully occupy and annex the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, which they attempted in April 1982, sparking the Falklands War.
Looks like someone else thinking along my lines.
So, should a bit more to it than just withdrawing a supply ship.
If I remember, there were 6 marines on south georgia (?) - not sure about this.
I think it was 25 on the Falklands.
There was at least one Argentinian living on the main island at the time -some sort of liason bod (perhaps).
So the Argentinians would have known how "well" defended the islands were.
31 soldiers on a territory next to someone who wants it very badly - that sounds like criminal neglect.
As an aside, I think Argentina still claims the Falklands, and I am fairly sure if you fly from there to Argentina, they don't do passport control because they like to pretend it is a domestic (rather than international) flight.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
please read the entry above that one too.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Visitors travelling from or via South America can connect with the LAN flight from Santiago, Chile, via Puerto Montt and Punta Arenas to the Falklands operating every Saturday. Once a month, usually on the second Saturday, on departing Punta Arenas, the flight calls at Rio Gallegos, Argentina. The return flight from Stanley via Rio Gallegos occurs one week later.
That's what is says on the "Falkland Islands" web page. Either I've read that wrong, or that's a flight from Argentina to the Falklands and back. (operated by a Chilean airline) Just accessed it 2 minutes ago.
As I said before, the Argentinians don't stamp the passports because they consider it an internal flight. Remember what I said about points of view before.
Perhaps the Falkland Islanders don't like the Argentinians because of cultural background - they like to drive on the (technically superior) British side of the road. They are used to speaking the (extremely flexible - one of the largest vocabularies, and expanding) English language.
If someone told me I would have to speak another lingo in my home country, I wouldn't be best pleased either - look at the welsh, basques etc. etc.
.
So, who is to blame for what you call the trip wire policy - or is that the Argentinian's fault too?
Also, anyone want to comment on David Owen's remark - was it all Thatcher's fault - back to where I came in?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Britain isn't technically a democracy anyway - it's a constitutional monarchy (with an unwritten constitution - I couldn't make it up!!)
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, your figure of 80 troops is composed of 69 marines (double strength), and 11 RN personel on a survey vessel.
So, if 69 is double strength, my figure of 31, which would have been reported to Argentina before the Invasion force set out, would have been pretty close (possibly) for the standing garrison. Not bad for a 25 year memory.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 09:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
1)a) The History Channel on their website say it was 69 marines and 11 RN personnel on the Endurance - are you saying they are wrong, or just misleading?
1)b) Was the unit at complement strength? That far away, any marines who had to be withdrawn may not have been replaced, assuming the unit was full strength at the start. Also politician love doing odd things for odd reasons. e.g Hitler increased the number of panzer divisions he had by only equipping each with two-thirds of it's complement of tanks - looked good on paper to say he had such a large number of divisions. Not sure if any division every reached full panzer strength, certainly most didn't.
Do you have a different source? If I know yours, I can expand my knowledge (never a bad thing).
2)a) Blame - another WP page (mentioned above) says that basically it was Thatcher's fault. Do you say that the other WP page needs to be corrected?
2)b) As demonstrated, it is hard for it to be the Labour Party's fault, as they "backed it up" with military force - it was the failure to "back it up" that was the real problem, don't you think.
3)a) The Islanders can consider the Argentine behaviour to be anything they want. Unprofessional way of expressing that feeling, I would have thought, have no place here - think how I would feel if I was reading this as an Argentinian - would I feel that you are giving both sides an equal airing?
3)b) Since Argentina are a sovereign nation, are they not free to set their immigration policy pretty much as they wish?
4)a) Perhaps more mention should be made of the general run down of the fleet - I would have thought a more "encouraging" reason to the Junta than moving one little ship around.
4)b) Any news on the nuclear sub? Or will this have to wait for history to tell it's tale?
5) So you don't think the driving and language thing has anything to do with the Islanders' dislike of Argentina?
6) Did we try to sell any ships shortly before the crisis - I remember us having to "un-sell" one.
That should be enough - than I will work up a draft "edit", and then see what you all think before applying it.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 13:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, that comes across as more than a little aggressive. I suggest you go and re-read what I'd written first.
NP8901 was at full strength a party of 40 Royal Marine Commandos including officers and NCO. As the change over happened in April, then there was co-incidentally a double strength at the time of the invasion. However, in response to the landings on South Georgia, a party of Royal Marines was detached from NP8901 and sent to South Georgia on HMS Endurance. 11 Sailors were left behind to make room for the RM, these were hydrographers and so weren't needed to keep the ship running. So at the time of the invasion there were 69 marines and 11 sailors in Stanley.
2a That page says The foreign secretary at the time David Owen later claimed that if Margaret Thatcher's government had taken similarly quick action five years later, the Argentinians would not have invaded in 1982 leading to the Falklands War. Reporting an opinion of a notable politician is fine, expressing your own in article is I suggest somewhat different.
2b See above.
3a Well, this is a talk page not an article for starters. I see nothing wrong in what I've written, even a neutral observer would see many of the things that the Argentine Government does to assert its claims as petty and in many ways counter productive.
3b Yes, they are. The point being that certain officials take it upon themselves to abuse their position and don't actually implement Argentina's own published policy.
4a I'm not sure that would necessarily be relevant, the main thing that frightened the Argentine Navy was the threat of a nuclear sub. Which BTW were not routinely deployed in the South Atlantic. The withdrawal of Endurance sent the message the British weren't interested. To a certain extent that was the case, the Foreign Office considered the Falklands a nuisance, something to be gotten rid off.
4b I'm not immediately sure what point you're making here. If you're referring to 1976. Well on the British side the Callaghan Government allegedly deployed a sub and leaked the news to Argentina. The Argentine Government maintains they knew nothing and had no plans to invade. However, Lombardo who planned Operation Azul (later renamed Operation Rosario) indicates it was one of his primary concerns in 1982 and that Anaya's plans to invaded in the '70s had been thwarted by the deployment of a sub. So the balance of the evidence for Operation Journeyman indicates its probably true. Now in 1982, you may remember that the news of the departure of a sub (HMS Splendid) was leaked, it is credited as one of the reasons for Argentina bringing forward the operation. The story goes that the MOD were trying to repeat the success of Operation Journeyman in thwarting earlier plans but it ended up as counter-productive since the Argentines acted to invade before the sub could arrive.
5 There were many reasons the Islanders had for disliking the Argentine occupation. The mess they made of the place, the stories of soldiers defecating in people's houses, forcing them to drive on the "wrong" side, making Spanish the official language, the activities of Military Intelligence and in particular the rather sinister Major Dowling. However, it should also be noted that men like Carlos Bloomer-Reeve and Major Hussey behaved with great integrity and humanity, both are still regarded with affection by the Islanders even today.
6 We'd sold HMS Invincible to Australia in 1981 to replace HMAS Melbourne, they graciously withdrew from the sale after the war. I'm not sure its relevant. Has the Argentines waited a few months it is true that we simple couldn't have retaken the Islands. The critical ships we needed would have been sold off or scrapped. A smart commander would have waited for their adversaries capability to reduce before acting. So they were either dumb or didn't take it into account.
Feel free to made a draft edit but I suggest you read some of the guidelines first. In particular consider that Wikipedia exists to produce an encylopedia, what you're proposing sounds like an opinion piece. It maybe perhaps pertinent to do an edit and then a self-revert to show what you intend to change. Justin A Kuntz 15:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The Royal Navy states that 85 marines were involved in the defense of South Georgia and the Falklands.
Another source states that the Endurance carried 9 marines from NP9801 (in addition to its complement of 13, including one officer.), giving a total of 22 on South Georgia.
The same source gives the figure of 67 for the Falkland islands, but it is not clear if this includes Major Norman and Major Noott. Additionally, Jim Airfield (spelt quite differently in another source), an ex-Royal Marine Corporal, who had moved to the Falklands, appears to have joined them, been issued with weaponry, and fought along side them.
That source agree with the figure of 2 officers and nine men from Endurance being in Stanley (i.e. 11)
So the total strength of NP9801 would appear to have been 76 or 78 (depending whether the 67 listed as available to Governor Hunt included the two Majors or not (my own guess is that it would have).
The WP page on the invasion says there were 57 marines and 11 RN sailors on the Falklands, and an additional 22 sent to South Georgia. Presumably this would have been NP9801 plus the complement of 13 attached to the Endurance, implying that the "double strength" NP9801 would have had about 66 members. Another User has repeatedly stated above that there were 80 marines.
The RAF, just to muddy the waters further, states on their website that 43 men from "new" NP8901, 25 from the "old" party, and 12 sailors were on the Falklands, with 9 further marines from the "old" party being sent to south Georgia.
So, take your pick - somewhere between 57 and 70 marines (including officers) plus 11 or 12 personnel from the Endurance on Stanley. Generally seems to be 22 going to South Georgia (9 from the Naval Party + 13 attached to Endurance), giving an overall figure of 77 to 92 marines in total. Perhaps the 85 figure from the Royal Navy has not counted sme who were not involved in the fighting.
Oh, the fog of war !
So, to summarise, there seems to be some doubt over the exact number of personnel involved.
Certainly it is hard to say that the Royal Navy and the RAF are not reputable sources of information.
Perhaps there will always be a variety of versions of what went on, if sources can't even agree on simple things such as how many marines there were.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 13:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Another reference. Lady Thatcher, April 14th 1982, speech to Parliament, mentions 22 marines on South Georgia.
Presumably the 13 which seem to have been attached to the survey ship. Plus 9 from the Naval Party.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The title pretty much says it.
When is the start of the "Falklands War"?
- the "scrap merchants" land on South Georgia?
- the departure of the Argentine Invasion fleet from the mainland?
- the Invasion?
- the reaction (to send a fleet)?
- the actual fleet departing?
- the Bombing raid?
- the fleet arriving in the Falklands?
- some other point?
The end seems more clear, but what of the beginning
TIA
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is where the tags say to discuss this, so I'll start the discussion.
Background to the Falklands War was prodded by Justin A Kuntz. Leithp deprodded it this afternoon, suggesting a merge instead. I was going to edit that page and leave some comments on the prod/merge in the edit summary, but I decided commenting here made more sense, to encourage some discussion.
Aside the extra detail on the Argentine régime that the Background article goes into (mostly the Argentine economic situation that lead to the war), I think everything in that article is more accurately and more substantially covered at Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, an article which has also had a lot more scrutiny. It strikes me that there is little point in merging anything from the Background article into this aside that information. Info from the British side could be summarised from the Sovereignty article. The background article should then be a redirect, not here but to the Sovereignty article. Pfainuk talk 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The "Landings on South Georgia" section says:
It seems odd to me that he would say "was" - surely he said "invasion is not imminent". I'd change this to "invasion [was] not imminent" to make it fit the context grammatically while indicating that it's not the original wording, but I don't actually know what the original wording was, because there's no citation of its source. Can anyone fix this? Hairy Dude ( talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:JKirkpatrickpbs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a wrong paragraph here, there are plenty of books and interviews where this is sourced. Constantino Davidoff workers, which were explicity authorized by UK, landed March 19 from the ARA Bahia Buen Suceso. The workers raised the Argentinian flag on their camp, the same way they did on December 1981 when they first go there with ARA Alte Irizar to check the abandoned installations. However, this second time, the British media reaction between the 20th and 23 was very important and tension go quickly high after the Foreign Office requested passports to be stamped which if accepted would establish a precedent and was not something requested by the UK signed contract. Therefore on March 24th its was ordered to the ARA Bahia Paraiso, which was at Orcadas at the time, to land ARA party lead by Astiz (which BTW was not part of any special forces but Intelligence) to "protect" or whatever Davidoff workers. The Astiz group was originally intended to establish a station in Georgias the same way they did on Thule years before but their mission was suspended on February due the Davidoff campaign. Anaya (ARA chief of staff)'s Operacion Rosario (planned to may be late 82 or 1983) was to be executed much earlier than expected if they want to have some kind of success because after the Georgias incident the Junta suspected the British garrison would be reinforced. Points 7-8 of this article seems nothing to do with "Events leading ..." but with the War itself -- Jor70 ( talk) 21:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
correct procedure on the return when he visited the British embassy to apologise, he promised they would visit the BAS station to get the passports stamped but they didn't. There are plenty of Argentine sources who will tell a contrary story but they are usually spouting Argentine Government propaganda. The facts are that Astiz's party embarked and landed with the scrap men, using Davidoff's party as a cover, they paraded in uniform, raised the flag and were observed by the BAS doing so, they also knew the correct procedure to follow before landing and deliberately and provocatively refused to do so, despite assurances to the contrary. They were not there to "protect" Argentine scrap workers, they were there as part of Operation Alpha to establish a presence on South Georgia. Justin talk 21:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
unindent
Regarding Davidoff's party, "infiltrated on board, pretending to be scientists, were members of an Argentine naval special forces unit" Nick van der Bijl, Nine Battles to Stanley, London, Leo Cooper P.8 as reported in Lawrence Freemdman, The Official History of the Falklands Camapign: Vol I The Origins of the Falklands War
"Bahia Buen Suceso set sail for South Georgia on 11 March carrying Argentine Marines" Rowland White, Vulcan 607, London, Bantam Press, p30.
"The Argentine Navy certainly knew the rules for the islands; these were part of the navigation code" Lawrence Freedmand and Virgina Gamba-Stonehouse, Signals of War, London, Faber and Fa ber P.47. This is an Anglo-Argentine book. It also reports how the BAS reported men in uniform, the official British notices on the islands regarding landings defaced, the customs house broken into, emergency supplies looted and the men were shooting Reindeer despite them being a protected species - and being illegal to land with firearms without permission. Not to mention the fact that the ship sailed in radio silence; nobody sails in radio silence in these waters unless their intentions are not entirely peaceful. Ships report icebergs, weather reports etc.
My apologies about one thing, you were correct that Astiz did not arrive in Leith until 24th March on ARA Bahia Paraiso but his troops were actually re-inforcements, they did this while HMS Endurance's mission had been postponed to avoid a confrontation. Freedman indicates that the decision to send RFA Fort Austin to replenish HMS Endurance wasn't taken till March 29. The erroneous story reported about HMS Superb appeared on the ITN news on the 30th March. Two nuclear submarines were dispatched on March 29, HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan.
Although she sailed on March 21 HMS Endurance was ordered to hold off and didn't land Royal Marine party on South Georgia until March 31, nearly a week after Astiz's landing. A small party had been on-shore and had observed the landings of the Argentine military.
The decision to invade was taken on March 26, so it is difficult to see how these events had any material influence on the decision. If the Argentine Junta misunderstood the British intentions that does not excuse their actions. The facts are that the Argentine landing on March 19 was needlessly provocative, the British response very low key. And the British press were not hysterical about the landings on South Georgia, it barely rated a footnote in most papers. Its also completely fatuous to claim Britain ratcheted up the tension over this incident, it was used by the Argentine Junta as an excuse to invade and they were responsible for the provocative acts that raised tensions in the first place. Justin talk 10:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Jor70 ( talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
yes very poor intel, but is a fact that Superb move was crucial in rushing Op Azul. Also a fact is that Astiz group was not in Georgias March 19 and arrived March 24 after diplomatic and media (the last one on the Junta view) escalation. Raising the flag was also did Dec 20, 1981 when the first group landed from Alte Irizar and no reaction was at that time. Additional military personal other than the crew is only given by British sources. The fact that Davidoff used ARA Bahia Buen Suceso because British authorities denied the use of the HMS Endurance to haul the metal away. I think all this should be mentioned --
Jor70 (
talk) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
of course, I not dismissing the British sources, I only said that to show a more balanced point of view there are some factually incorrect facts that that should be mentioned here, such as (I repeat them again ... )
-- Jor70 ( talk) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Justin, you continue to missed the point. Back to my original post: The Argentine position is not spec forces were MARCH 19 on ARA Bahia buen Suceso: I already explained twice what Lombardo said (can you please tell me your source ISBN or whatever). Astiz (and grupo alfa) were sent March 24 on ARA Bahia Paraiso (You see, Im never denied their existence). HMS Endurance (as ARA Transportes Navales Co) were hireable ships in 1982. You continue to be exalted against dark intentions to change to whole article when I only intended to create a consensus here of something more that just the British view of the events (which BTW, before you start again, Im not against your british sources). --
Jor70 (
talk) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
1. I have provided sources to back up what I said, you have not.
2. You have not explained anywhere what Lombardo said.
3. For the third or more time of pointing this out to you - IT IS NOT JUST A BRITISH VIEW OF THE EVENTS but a NPOV version. ONE OF THE AUTHORS I QUOTED IS ARGENTINE. And I only use block capitals because of a repeated failure to acknowledge what is said to you.
4. Sources provided back up the version of events where Argentine military personnel were landed on MARCH 19, they used Davidoff's party as a cover. In return you have provided NOTHING but claims that the article is somehow biased.
5. HMS Endurance was not for hire in 1982.
6. About the only slightly incorrect version of events is that Astiz didn't land till March 24, the rest is correct. However, you're proposing an edit that claims that Britain escalated events and that cause the Argentine Junta to invade the Falkland Islands. That is unacceptable because it does not fit the facts, it reflects a biased POV to excuse the actions of the Argentine Junta.
7. I have patiently explained why the edit you're proposing is unacceptable. You are persisting in an assumption of bad faith in my reasons for doing so. That I find increasingly unacceptable.
Justin
talk 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You see Justin, after all this talk, the current version
[3] is FAR more accurate as IMHO I suggested in my first post --
Jor70 (
talk) 20:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Justin A Kuntz summarily deleted my tabular input on the merchant ships of the task force to retake the Falklands. I shall attempt to integrate the material into British naval forces in the Falklands War. I was a bit surprised to have my contribution reverted without discussion, but I can see (belatedly) I have entered a realm of strong feelings of ownership (like the islands themselves, I suppose). It took me some time to find a more appropriate location for the STUFT data, and I suggest those who feel entitled to control changes to this article might consider adding one or more "main article" links to the articles of the forces involved. Such links might help preserve the format so carefully cultivated here. Thewellman ( talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanna say I totally agree with Justin's decision here. The article already briefly mentions the STUFT ships. Also there's a more detailed list here, but if u wanted to expand that section i.e. add some sentences. That's be totally awesome ;) Ryan4314 ( talk) 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't this page part of the Falklands War page? I am aware that it would make one long page, but that's not a reason to split it by itself... Spettro9 ( talk) 06:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor removed the cover of Newsweek with the "Empire strikes back" headline. It's claimed to be a violation of WP:FU. I however disagree since the text doesn't convey the "spirit of the time" as the image + headline. I'm not convinced that it's a violation of WP:FU. Let's start a debate here. --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The article repeatedly mentions BAS and says nothing about what BAS is. I came here to ask, and found it buried in a long discussion above. I added it to the article. Nick Beeson ( talk) 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Galtieri.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Galtieri.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC) |
I suggest a split in the bottom third of the article. It doesn't so much talk about the events leading up to the war, as much as it does the positions of other countries and international organizations. I think a split off of "International participation..." or something of that nature would be more appropriate.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 00:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I have updated two sections, the US response and the French, both edits reflect quite recent source material and one has been reverted on the grounds that it is 'POV'. I am more than happy to further edit to reach consensus, however, the edits do reflect the gist of the material, regards. Twobells ( talk) 15:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Edit, another revert, on the grounds that the edit was 'POV' when the edit reflected the source material which included the word 'betrayal' in the lede. However, for the sake of neutrality I have re-worded the edit to satisfy the usual US-Centric suspects, regards. Twobells ( talk) 15:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: this edit. Ignoring the bit at the top corrected by the editor in question.
The first point is left completely unsourced. The wording gives the impression that such a compromise was in Haig's gift, that Haig could somehow have imposed a compromise that favoured Argentina. Patently he could not and did not. What the WSJ source says is quite different. What it says is that the Haig proposals in the Shuttle Diplomacy favoured Argentina. The source then flatly contradicts the thrust of the edit by pointing out that the NSC's response was to come out in favour of Britain.This comment was originally part of a single comment by Kahastok talk 22:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC), continued below
The second part, re: South Georgia. It seems to me that the key point here is that Haig made this proposal to the British ambassador. The proposed text very much gives the impression that Haig was planning on stabbing the British in the back. Far from it, he actually put the proposal to the British government and then abandoned it when the British objected.
Both points are made in a paragraph currently discussing a UNSC veto made several weeks after either event. Kahastok talk 22:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Really. [5] Ref this edit, the edit is dubious and problematic for the way its put together.
The article actually states:
“ | Francois Heisbourg, who at the time was international security adviser to the French Minister of Defence, Charles Hernu, insists that his government did not know that the technical team was there. But, he says, the fact that it evidently was is inexcusable.
"It is now undeniable and... one should not belittle it. This was not what was supposed to be done. It is the sort of thing which mars what should otherwise have been picture-perfect co-operation between the two countries," he says. But not all in the French government were in the dark about the technical team's presence in Argentina during the conflict. Pierre Lethier, former chief of staff of the DGSE - the French equivalent of Britain's foreign intelligence agency MI6 and signal intelligence headquarters GCHQ - admits that his department did know about them. "This is what intelligence is for. You need sources. We had difficulties to penetrate the Argentinian army at that time during the Falklands conflict. So, the more helpers you have the better you are," he says. Lethier told me that the DGSE had an informer among the members of the technical team who was able to give them some information about what the Argentinian military was doing. But he is fiercely critical of the French team for the technical help it gave. "It's bordering on an act of treason, or disobedience to an embargo," he says. "I mean, it's clear that if the head of state in France decrees an embargo, it's an embargo. Full point." |
” |
Best you can make of that is he was aware of some things the team were allegedly doing. You write:
“ | Whereas French government advisers of the time deny having had knowledge of the technical team's presence, Pierre Lethier, a former chief of staff in DGSE, later admitted his organisation was aware of the team's work[dubious – discuss],[35] leading to claims in both the British and French media that the French had 'played both sides'[36] with the British Defense Secretary Sir John Nott going as so far as stating, "We asked Mitterrand not to give assistance to the Argentinians. If you're asking me: 'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been." | ” |
The assertion he knew exactly what they were doing is not sustainable. In addition, the way the whole sentence is constructive is classic cherry picking. You may as well have written, and I paraphrase, "The French claim they knew nothing but they're lying bastards as this guy knew".
In addition, you've a paragraph in which you cram in a quote that is derogatory to the French, simply because you can source it, does not mean you can cherry pick it out of context and cram it in there. Your edits reflect a strong nationalistic bias and that is an anathema to wikipedia. And the above is just one example.
And you don't address the problem with your edits, you ignore the points put to you, you simply repeat the phrase "non-contentious, reliably-sourced material" as it were an answer. Newsflash: it isn't. W C M email 00:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I tapped out a similar objection for the other paragraph, but decided not to post it (yet) to avoid getting WP:TLDR, so I will summarise. The whole thing reads as though the author is trying to divine from the source an Evil American Plot that was foiled by the British Ambassador. In doing this it stretches the source beyond breaking point. Moreover, it seems to confuse the two sources that Twobells cited earlier (the WSJ and Telegraph). It is not at all clear that Twobells has realised that those two sources are discussing completely different documents and completely different proposals. Kahastok talk 10:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, I am always more than happy to alter the text to reach consensus as long as the final edit reflects the source material.
Moving on, you are once again making accusations founded, with respect on suspect conjecture, assuming the worse possible motivations, which I have to say lacks good faith, a behavior, which has been singly obvious to all in your dealings with me. The actual reason I added the quote was an attempt to bring the article into consensus following your statement that you believed the source material did not reflect what I had written, irrespective of the fact that other editors believed it was fair and neutral, so I thought it best to actually quote from the article directly, but oh no, you now find something wrong with that, again assuming the worst motivations. With good faith in mind, I have a faint suspicion following your edits here that you do not like what the primary,secondary and tertiary source material says and believe you have the right to remove it irrespective of the fact that, (here we go once again) the articles and books are non-contentious, reliably-sourced reference material. In reference to yet another critique, once again you are conjecturing what authors were thinking or doing, in that, 'my edit reflects a strong nationalistic bias', the problem with that argument is that we can only be guided by the source material and what is contained therein which my edits reflected. In closing, what I would like to do is ask you to write a few sentences here which you believe effectively reflects the source material and then we can all see for ourselves whether the text has reached consensus as plainly you refuse to accept my edits irrespective of the numerous good faith, re-writes I had made, best wishes. Twobells ( talk) 13:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Twobells, I count four times now on this page, plus at least one on your talk page and one at WP:ANEW, you have declared that the reason editors object to your proposed changes is that they dislike your conclusions. And that doesn't count the times when you've accused editors of writing according to agendas. Each occurrence is an accusation of bad faith. It seems to me that you have no real right to complain if you feel people are not assuming your good faith, given your persistent failure to assume anyone else's good faith.
I have not yet seen as explanation as to why this particular source material has to be included in this article at all. It's question that needs to be answered. On the French aspect, there is nothing clearly relevant to this article at all - it is far from clear the fact that there was a French team in Buenos Aires was in any sense led to the Falklands War.
And the other point. If Twobells thinks this is an uncontentious reflection of the source, I wonder if he has read the source. In about five minutes of comparison between the four proposed sentences and the source, I found eight fairly major differences, where the text says or implies something that the source does not back. Some are subtle, some are blatant. Any single one of these would put me in the "oppose" camp when finding consensus. And that's without the tone of the text as a whole, which creates a narrative - as I say, it implies an Evil American Plot to sell the British down the river - which is simply not present in the source.
Now, I'm not quite sure why I'm writing this. If past form is anything to go by, the response will be another accusation of bad faith and yet another repeat of "non-contentious, reliably-sourced reference material". Would people prefer it if I stopped bothering trying to help and just said "Oppose per above unanswered arguments" at every iteration that fails to meet my concerns? I must admit I do not see that it would make a whole lot of difference to our likelihood of actually getting consensus for anything. Kahastok talk 16:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
References
With the charge that some edits do not refer to events leading to the Falklands War then perhaps we need to remove certain sections entirely as some are referring directly to post-war events, thoughts? Twobells ( talk) 14:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is Lami Dozo's name preceded by "[sic]"? It appears in precisely that form several times in this article, and also in the linked article. 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 14:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Events leading to the Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the "Argentine Intentions" is nearly WORD FOR WORD plagiarized from a book titled RAF Strike Command 1968-2007: Aircraft, Men and Action. The book was written by Kev Darling.
I admittedly do not know how to put citations into Wikipedia, but if someone else does, please look into this. We should give credit where it is due.
-Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.122.2 ( talk) 18:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
By way of slight apology to other editors, I edited the title of a book used as a reference in the article, giving it its full name. Somehow it turned into this [6] strange edit that looks more like vandalism or a test edit. I do not know how this happened, but I just wanted to let other editors know that the edit was not done by me, in case anyone thinks it was. I cannot see how it edit could have happened, even accidentally. Thanks to Jessicapierce for reverting it. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)