Talk:Falklands War/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

The Role of France II

I agree with Hohum. I propose to include the role of USA, France and Chile in the case of UK and the role of Peru in the case of Argentina. This are the referenced support-countries. We write a briefly account of the help. No suppositions, no unreferenced material, no irrelevant gesture. --Keysanger 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including that but if we veer into the realm of speculation then no that is not appropriate. Justin talk 20:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that a section on third party countries would make very much sense to readers interested in the conflict. Its size could be similar to the one on the "Initial British response to the invasion" (with a possible page with more details linked to it). As a reader, I'd be interested to know more about the real role of the US for instance. Whilst Jor70 suggests that the US helped Britain a lot, I red that they were pretty reluctant to support Britain. Obviously this is interesting to understand the choice of Britain to go to war. It is interesting as one iconic moment when the "special relationship" was tested. It is also interesting as a historic benchmark to assess what could be the likely US reaction to a new Falklands crisis. But beyond these specific reasons, explaining the different positions of third party countries gives a broader picture of the conflict, it gives more geopolitical depth to the article. Given that everybody thinks third party countries played a crucial role, it is surprising that they are currently left out of the article.

I would concur with Keysanger: "We write a briefly account of the help. No suppositions, no unreferenced material, no irrelevant gesture." Gpeilon (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So, I am the author of "Reagan, Thatcher, and the Tilt" at Automatic Ballpoint (cited above by Jor70). I would like to direct your attention to an Economist editorial released in the wake of the Anglo-French defense treaty signed last week. It's also mentioned above, but a direct quote seems in order here:

British and French forces had frequently worked and fought together under the command of one or other country. With the exception of the Iraq controversy, the two have rarely found themselves on opposite sides during recent international crises. For example, Britain’s defence secretary during the Falklands war, John Nott, revealed in his memoirs that France had been Britain’s staunchest ally, providing information that helped to render the Exocet anti-ship missiles used by Argentina ineffective, and supplying Mirage and Super-Etendard fighters for British Harrier pilots to pit themselves against in training.

I must confess I can't quite figure out what this debate is about (whether or not to put a passage in about France's role? Why not?), but hopefully that helps some in settling the matter. --Grahamdubya (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome MR Grahamdubya !, I must confess that Nott's comments sounds to me only as a political gesture, e.g. turn Exocets ineffective: they didnt have much luck there, although the missiles did have problems as all new weapons including blowpipes, rapiers, etc. but anyway, did someone ask what would happened to Britain without this staunchest French help ? Compare the answer to what would happend to Britain without US help ? So, the debate here was just why mention France if US (and Chile) were so far important and decisive. There seems to be consensus now to include all countries. --Jor70 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no clear evidence (such as a military report after the war) about what would have happen without the French help and is not our task as Wikipedian. Deciding that it would have had no impact would be WP:OR and use it as an argument against the inclusion of documented statements on the involvement of France would be against Wikipedia policy. I want to be clear: I am frankly agnostic about what was the impact of the French help, but is it our function to decide? No. Margaret Thatcher and Nott said France's help was crucial. Who knows, they may have been talking rubbish (though they have not been contradicted publicly). But it is not up to us to dismiss their claim on the base of WP:OR. Gpeilon (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct, that is why I support Gpeilon's proposal on content, if it is of help I made a proposal on content above. If I may be so bold I suggest you're probably suggesting more prose than is entirely appropriate. Justin talk 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, OK given the different support for a third party countries section, I did a bold change and inserted one with the info given by Jor70 and the paragraph rewritten by Justin. As it stand it requires some tidy up, and its position in the article may also be discussed. It should clearly be a good addition to the article. Gpeilon (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Gets 2 thumbs up from me. Justin talk 13:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Soviet support for Argentina is also significant and worth a mention http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/i83ht_Russia2_Garcia.html especially as it may have influenced US support for the UK--Flexdream (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Malvinist?

I tried to find in internet the meaning of the word malvinist and found nothing. I did not try to find it in my old english dictionaries. I think it is a neologism and when I deduce the meaning from the context it is a pejorative for Argentines that insist, whine, live and hate for the beloved Falkland Islands. We should renounce to use that biased word in the article:

• it has a negative conotation. I found in google [1] by the word malvinist following adjectives: ignorant, Parrots, ardent, hilarious, die-hard, scourge, cyber warrior, reluctance.
• the sentence "He (an Argentine) is malvinist" has almost the same information content that the sentence "The Isle of Man is an Island". Non-Malvinist Argentine are rare (Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, Jorge Luis Borges).
• In Argentina the Malvinas are one of the few issues that unite the country. The state drum the nostalgia for the islands into the children and WP shouldn't abuse of such shortcommings.

Of course I am for the complete delete of the photo and the text, but some people want to blame Anaya for what the Argentines did. But please use other wording. --Keysanger 20:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any negative connotations, otherwise I obviously wouldn't have used it. If there are feel free to remove and suggest an alternative. I would however note that Anaya was one of the chief architects of the Falklands invasion, it was a condition of his support for Galtieri as president and it was Anaya who initiated Project Alpha. So I would object to the photo removal or the gist of the caption. I will ask Jor70 and Darius for comment. Justin talk 20:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A comment about the four points of Keysanger.

• Alleged neologism. First of all, a number of words were coined or became of common use after the war (perhaps the most famous is the military slang "yomp" or the use of "stonking" by Chris Keeble to describe the effects of 155mm rounds flying over). Here in Argentina terms like "gurkhas", "kelpers" or "exocet" became common vocabulary after 1982. Therefore, "malvinism" in English should be assessed under the same standards.
• Negative connotation. In Argentina the connotation is rarely negative, given the claim of my country over the islands. The search on google would obviously result in hostile adjectives since the cause of "Malvinas" has negative press in Britain, some Commonwealth countries, and needless to say, in the Falklands. However, the argument of a "biased" term is debunked by a reliable, published source, namely Martin Middlebrook, who depicts Anaya explicity as a "malvinist" in his book The Fight for Malvinas.
• Non-Malvinist Argentines are not so rare. To the examples you mention we can add philosopher Juan José Sebrelli, journalist Liliana López Foresi, the late president Raúl Alfonsín (at least in the immediate aftermath of the war) and a number of neo-liberal politicians during the 1990s. If we read the term as an expression of jingoism, I can tell you that most Argentines reject this stance.
• "The state drum the nostalgia for the islands into the children and WP shouldn't abuse of such shortcommings." This worked for my early childhood (I turned 40 this year), but the generations who grew up after the war have a different approach to the issue: they are taught that the "Malvinas" are Argentine, yes, but they also are taught that Galtieri's dictatorship made the mistake of trying to recover them by force.

In sum; We have a published, reliable source which specifically uses the term "malvinist" to describe Anaya. Since this complies with WP:SOURCE policies, no reasonable PoV objection can be raised. Regards.--Darius (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not consider the Argentine public opinion for now. Let's stay in the English language. We agree that it is a neologism, undefined and pejorative. Furthermore we agree that there are a reliable source that use the word. My problem, and yours also, is what should I answer to a reader who ask me what does malvinist mean? I can't answer "do read Middlebrook", because he also didn't say it. We can try some definitions like "a strain of Argentine nationalism", "Argentine expansionism", "Argentine attitude toward the lost islands", etc. But that is WP:OR, it doesn't help us further.

File:RFA Sir Tristram.1982.jpg

Un barco pirata despues del combate contra las fuerzas anticolonialistas.

In order to grasp the whole implications of the current nebulous definition of malvinist, we go to the Argentine debatte and take the word pirata([2]). It is obviously a neologism, they mean neither that the Brits are pirates like 200 years ago nor that the Brits are a ilegal copy of expensive software (bootleg). A old word get a new meaning and that from the President Cristina Fernandez personally ([3]). So, we have a similar case in Spanish: it is a non-defined pejorative neologism with a reliable source. What do you think about the possible Spanish legend of the (right) photo?. I find it "extrem". Of course, every definition can always be objected. (Anti)colonialista is defined and objected differently by Argentine and British. But we should avoid the extremes of the language. I am not the only one who rails against the abusive language:

Crow about your country's achievements if you must. But when crowing descends into vituperative jingoism, I think it's time for a pause.

It's one thing to tease me, call me a pirata to my face. It's something else to threaten and insult an entire nation from the anonymity of an internet username. [4]

--Keysanger 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually we simply laugh at the pirate jibes, didn't you know that? May I suggest you remove that as it is intended as a racist diatribe - silly thing to be blocked over. You claim that Malvinist is a pejorative, well I was unsure of that. Now I know it isn't and it is sourced. Good enough for me. I would have been horrified to have inadvertently used a word in a pejorative sense but it is not used that way here. Justin talk 22:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

And what does malvinist mean? --Keysanger 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It simply refers to someone with strong feelings about the Argentine claim. Justin talk 22:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You know that is WP:OR. I propouse a objective, factual description of the person:

Chief of the Argentine Navy Admiral Jorge Anaya. His consent to Galtieri's rise to power was tied to Galtieri's pledge to impose Argentine souvereignty over the Falklands by any means.

He was Anglophobe?, Read that about exogene causes of the war: he was a MI6 agent!. --Keysanger 20:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I can read Spanish and that article says no such thing. This clearly isn't WP:OR as it is sourced per Darius' post above. If perhaps you could explain why you object to the current text it may help but noting that neither the Argentine or British editors object to it, we don't understand your strident objection. Justin talk 21:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin,

1. malvinist is a referenced but non-defined word. Can you give a sourced definition of the word?
2. anglophobe is not referenced. Can you give a reference for "Anaya was anglophobe"?
3. my reference http://www.perfil.com/contenidos/2008/01/10/noticia_0054.html says: ...Y, como siempre ocurre en estos casos, se necesitaba [by the Anglos] un socio local. Alguien que dentro mismo de la junta militar argentina impulsara la crisis. Y ahí entra en la historia Anaya. ... Luego, Anaya ocuparía un puesto clave en el exterior -donde probablemente se comenzara a planificar la "pequeña guerra" en cuestión-: agregado naval en Europa. ¿Dónde? En Londres, destino para el que fuera requerido por los propios británicos por un período más del habitual. ... ¿Creyó Anaya en el sentido "patriótico" de su misión en Malvinas? ¿O fue un instrumento conciente de los británicos?". (bold by Keysanger). That is the anglos wanted a war, they needed a agent to impuls the war and find Anaya who prepared it from London during his work in the embassy. (Notice: this outrageous theory is not mine. It is published in the reference.) What is an instrumento consciente if not an agent?
4. YOUR definition of malvinist ist obviously YOUR WP:OR. Any thing that is not verificable is WP:OR.

So, again: The text is unreferenced (anglophobe) and non-defined (malvinist). Darius reference support the use of the word but doesn't give the definition and you give no definition of the word. More over Darius and I agree thta the word is a pejorative. --Keysanger 00:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Keysanger, your source suggesting Anaya is an "agent" of the British isn't reliable. It's just the opinion of an Argentinian veteran. Extraordinary claims need extraordinarily good sources. (Hohum ^@) 02:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I can produce a source labelling Anaya as an Anglophobe, his antipathy toward the British is well known. Rowland White's book for example. We have a source using the term. Claims he was an MI6 agent, well that fails WP:DUE seeing as we don't have to include every crackpot conspiracy theory. Regarding the unfounded allegation the word was used as pejorative, well Darius actually clearly states this is not the case. I'm starting to agree with Jim below and fail to see how this is intended to improve the article. Justin talk 12:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. I fail to see how this does. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hohum, yes the MI6 reference is not very reliable but "anglophobe" has not reference at all!

Hi Justin, "well known antiphaty" is not enough, we need references.

Hi Jim, please pay atention to Anaya's photo legend. The term "malvinist" is non-defined, no one can say what that means. We use in WP a term that we don't know. Do you know what "§+?%-6/##" means? Probably no, but would you use it?. Justin tried a vague definition but without any reference, that is WP:OR. And the word "anglophobe" is defined but has no reference. More over, the term "malvinist" has in the English world a pejorative use as Darius states (The search on google would obviously result in hostile adjectives since the cause of "Malvinas" has negative press in Britain, some Commonwealth countries, and needless to say, in the Falklands.) and this bad connotation is not changed by the fact that the use is referenced. (see example "piratas"). So, we can get rid of the dificult term using:

Chief of the Argentine Navy Admiral Jorge Anaya. His consent to Galtieri's rise to power was tied to Galtieri's pledge to impose Argentine souvereignty over the Falklands by any means.

Why do you insist to use "malvinist" and "anglophobe"?. Tell the reader the facts and not adjectives. --Keysanger 18:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to recognise you're now into the territory of tendentious editing, your concerns have been noted and addressed. Please stop, c'mon you can be a good editor, don't you think you're being a tadge obsessive. Justin talk 21:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, gracious me! : "tendentious", "bad", "obsessive". You shut with all your Personal-Attack-Battery 155mm. Why not also POV-Pusher, nationalist, irredentist, troll, imperialist, islamist?.

Do not talk about me, talk about my arguments!. What about the references for anglophobe?, the sourced definition for malvinist? the refutation of the negative connotation of malvinist?. That is my last contribution to the disussion until you or some one deliver references and thoughts. --Keysanger 15:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "malvinist". It's not a common term, IMO it should be changed for clearer English. (Hohum ^@) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems discussion anded and edit warring began, along with snarky edit comments. Please desist. In my opinion there is no need to use the specific term "malvinist". This is an encyclopedia which is supposed to explain, not obfuscate. I support changing it to a clearer supported phrase without obscure terminology. If it is too long for the caption, move it in the main text. (Hohum ^@) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no one is edit warring and I certainly haven't used any snarky edit comments. I respectfully disagree, Keysanger demonstrated, albeit unwittingly that its a term in relatively common use in both languages. The use is also cited. It has been in use for some time now in this article.

I would suggest given that Keysanger previously suggested we remove this image that it is the image that he has issues with rather than the caption. The consensus is to retain it, there is no offence caused by the use of this word, so I really don't understand the fervent desire to see it removed. But lets keep it calm eh? Justin talk 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Arguing about something, then falling silent and reverting each other is either edit warring directly, or tantamount to it. "rm tag used for disruptive reasons" is clearly snarky and not AGF. However, that it has stopped, and doesn't continue is more important than arguing about what to call it.

I have no problem with keeping the image, but that is beside the point.

Show me the malvinist entry in a reputable dictionary. If there isn't one, it has no place in an article which is supposed to be clear. I believe it is a niche term largely only known by people interested in this specific conflict. I don't see anything in this thread that shows that the term is in common usage. Wikipedia articles are intended for the widest audience. I don't understand the "fervent" desire to keep it when it can be explained more clearly. (Hohum ^@) 21:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"rm tag used for disruptive reasons", as opposed to adding it in the first place? AGF? Well I have repeatedly asked for an explanation from Keysanger why he wishes to have it removed and his reasons have varied from it being "insulting", lacking a cite, a racist pejorative etc all of which have been rebutted. Its use here is cited and aposite, sorry I respectfully disagree and the onus in changing concensus is to provide a compelling argument to do so. Justin talk 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's cut right to the chase. In my opinion, the word "malvinist" is a neologism, it is undefined and it has a negative connotation. Justin, would You be so kind to refute this three objections (if you can)? Please, tell me:

• Is there a dictionary that defines the word?
• Do you consider "ignorant", "parrots", "ardent", "hilarious", "die-hard", "scourge", "cyber warrior", "reluctance" a neutral description of a person?. (Remember that we discuss for the use in the en:WP, not for the es:WP)
• Can you demostrate that "malvinist" isn't a neologism?.

Please, do not deviate the discussion to personal issues. Best regards. --Keysanger 21:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention to deviate any discussion onto personal issues and I resent the bad faith implication of that statement. Malvinist is not a neologism, its a terms in common use as you demonstrated yourself with a google search and further we have a source confirming its use in a reliable publication. Further it is not used in a negative context, as Darius kindly demonstrated. Were it to be used in a pejorative sense I would of course have been horrified to have do so inadvertently but as two Argentine contributors have noted this is not the case. Ardent or fervent or any other adjective used in the proper context are perfectly acceptable words to use if appropriate and are perfectly neutral. Justin talk 10:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Malvinist" gets a pathetic 316 hits in google, and only 21 hits in a google books search. It is in no way in common usage. It is used only in a very niche situation. Using the term (without explanation) is not compatible with the clarity and audience intended at wikipedia. (Hohum ^@) 13:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and remind you that it is sourced per WP:RS. The allegations were that it is used in a negative and pejorative manner, those allegations are demonstrably false. It seems the goal posts are moving now. Justin talk 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How can you disagree that it is a niche term? It's not in an RS dictionary, and has *very* few google results. Just because a particular source uses the term doesn't mean that readers will magically understand what it means. I have never mentioned pejorative issues. I have my own separate opinion to Keysanger - and have repeated it, IMO clearly. (Hohum ^@) 23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably because I am very familiar with its usage and understand its meaning. Funnily enough. I commented about moving the goal posts as it seems to me, that having rebutted claims of bias and racism, which I have to observe are as clear a bad faith accusation as they come, other reasons are now being invented. Its use is sourced per WP:RS and that really should be the end of the matter, no one objected at the time I changed the caption. Months later an objection is raised but it seems that objection is more intended to remove an image the editor failed to have removed last time.

If you were to make a content suggestion that I could look at, then perhaps I could consider it. So far its been that you just don't like the use of a word. Which is not helpful. Do you actually have one? Justin talk 09:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin - I am presenting my own issue with the use of the term, I am not part of a conspiracy which share memos ;) I hope that I haven't made a bad faith accusation, and haven't mentioned bias or racism. I didn't make a comment when the caption was added since I simply didn't notice it - I have over a 1,000 articles on my watchlist and I miss things - I'm only human. In any case, there isn't a time limit on mentioning issues with an article.

Again, I have no problem with the inclusion of the image of Anaya, he was a significant player in events.

The RS is used to verify Anaya's role, it doesn't explain what malvinist means.

If the term "malvinist" is to be used, I beleive that its *meaning* needs to be explained and that meaning reliably sourced, either in the main text, or a linked note. I don't currently have such a source. Since you want to include the term, you need to find one, although I will look too. (Hohum ^@) 11:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not blowing my own trumpet but I've worked hard here to build bridges and gain an understanding between editors of what are, notionally at least, opposing nationalities. The Falklands area could easily be a hotbed of narrow nationalism but they're not and in general everyone works well together. So it was unhelpful for Keysanger to allege racism and bias in the way that he did. I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that Malvinist needs an explanation or footnote but would openly consider any proposal you have to make. Thats a major part of the issue I have here, there has been criticism, mainly unfounded with no reasonable suggestion for alternate content. I'm not wedded to the content I originally produced, I'll listen with an open mind to reasonable content suggestions. But criticism on its own is not helpful. Justin talk 14:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with malvinist because is already sourced. said that, we must admit that the word has different and opposite connotations in Spanish and English, the first is a kind a good one in the sense not to legitimate the war but the cause whilst in English is obviously a condemned of both the war and the cause. Now about using anglophobe for Anaya is quiet strange due the Argentine navy was always, at least until 1982 a big admirer of the Royal Navy ( they used their same uniforms, they train in uk and not to mention the brit hardware ) --Jor70 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin: Respectfully, I have made a content change proposal.

To reiterate; either:

• Remove the unexplained term Malvinist, and use different wording.

or

• Explain it, with a reference to the definition.

I can't properly do either, because I'm not sure what you think it means, and don't have a source which explains its meaning.

As a third, (and possibly best, on reflection) alternative, you could simply quote the phrase used directly from the source. (Hohum ^@) 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jor70, Anaya's antipathy toward the English is well known, enough for several well known commentators to bring it up. I don't dispute that there was a strong relationship between the two navies but Anaya's anglophobia is a factor in his decision making and seems appropriate to be included. As I said earlier, it is already sourced in Rowland White's book. White, Rowland (2006). Vulcan 607. London: Bantam Press. pp. 13–14. ISBN 9780593053928.

Hohum, respectfully you haven't made a content proposal beyond vague suggestions. If you wish to use alternative wording, then simply propose it and it can be considered; I've already indicated my willingness to consider alternatives. Explain it? Well wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and its use here is sourced per WP:RS, which suffices for wikipedia's policies. As regards the third suggestion "ardent malvinist" is actually a direct quote from the source as Darius suggests above. You could reformat it as a quote if you feel it helps. Justin talk 15:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin "I can't properly do either, because I'm not sure what you think it means, and don't have a source which explains its meaning." It is up to the person adding information to rise to challenges to it. I have explained several times, I believe clearly, that although the source is an RS, it doesn't explain what malvinist means - and I have show very clearly that it is a very niche term. This encyclopedia exists to inform people, not confuse them. I can't see why you cannot understand that.

I can't quote from a source that I don't have.

If I have to explain this yet again, either I'm far less clear than I think I am, or I'll start wondering if you're stonewalling. I'd prefer if it's the former. (Hohum ^@) 18:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are unclear, I have no idea what you're on about now; Darius aka Dagosnavy provides the quote above, if you wish to propose a new caption do so. I can't say it plainer than that. Justin talk 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• having rebutted claims of bias and racism: I NEVER used (until now) the words racist or racism. You used it. You are fighting a battle that never existed.
• Further it is not used in a negative context, as Darius kindly demonstrated.: Darius wrote

In Argentina the connotation is rarely negative, ... The search on google would obviously result in hostile adjectives since the cause of "Malvinas" has negative press in Britain... I don't see there that "Malvinist" is not used in a negative context in Britain. I read the opposite: that the google hits will show hostile adjectives, that is a negative context. Jor70 said it explicit: " we must admit that the word has different and opposite connotations in Spanish and English,"

• Malvinist is not a neologism: The search of "malvinist" in sites of English language gets 191 hits many of them are replications of the en:WP article or discussions in facebook. And nowhere is a definition of the word. Is that a "well known" word? What is a "malvinist"?
• The legend of the photo uses only British sources for the wording. In Argentina Anaya is not described as "malvinist", "ardent" or "anglophobe". WP MUST use a NPOV.

--Keysanger 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Malvinist doesn't seem a particularly well-known word, so using it jsut a photo-caption seems unlikely to be particularly helpfu lfor readers fo the article. If there were some discussion of Malvinism in the main text of the article, I'd be less bothered by the usage, it is guessable form context. David Underdown (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

David, perhaps having been involved in Falklands matters for so long, its a word I naturally use. I asked for outside comment from our Argentine colleagues and they're perfectly happy with the way its used here. Hohum and I were discussing reasonably amicably a possible alternative caption but I'm afraid having been confronted with a rant on the talk page we've both chosen to walk away for a few days. Having said that, I note your comment on Malvinism and will contemplate a short paragraph on it, which I will suggest here for inclusion. Will that satisfy you? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sad, sad, sad. --Keysanger 19:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, I encourage you to add a well sourced phrase or two explaining Malvinism as you suggested in your last comment, which I believe would put the matter to rest, at least from my point of view. (Hohum ^@) 00:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw the notice, I wondered what a Malvinist might be, but once I saw that it was the Falklands War, it was obvious. Check dictionary.com [5] or consider the followers of Sandino (Sandinistas), American abolitionists or isolationists, etc. I have no idea why anyone would see it as a derogatory term, but agree that it ought to be explained in a paragraph rather than just used in a caption. --Habap (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Habap, hi Slatersteven, thanks for the link, that is a big step better than justin's off the cuff definition 'Malvinist is what I think that is it'. But dictionary.reference.com gives only a general help for a suffix and not the definition of "malvinist". From the 5 given possibilities, which one should we choose?. Why? Why not the next or the previous one?. What do you think about the 5. one: a person who is prejudiced on the basis specified? or A person who holds biased views as stated by wikitionary.

I hope you have now a idea why anyone could see it as a derogatory term. To explain first what is a Malvinist, you will bark up the wrong tree, that would be WP:OR. We are not here to invent or define new words. --Keysanger 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Im have no idea why any can see it as a degoarotory term. Yes Ist can be prefixed iin the way you describe. But we would need RS extablishing that its used in that way with regards to the term Malvinist, not just a general definition which is not always the case any way. That would be OR and synthasis. I would ask that some of these sources that define the word are listed speratly. this is a very long and ramabling debate and its hard to see all the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just choose dictionary.com's own definition of -ist, which denotes "a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines"? Or why not stick to the first option from Collins, a person who performs a certain action or is concerned with something specified, with the something being the Malvinas. Neither of those is derogatory. An abolitionist in American history was concerned with the abolition of slavery. A Thomist is a followed of the theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas. A revanchist desires to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war. None of those is derogatory, so why does the revanchist sobriquet, Malvinist, have to be derogatory? --Habap (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Becasue these do not define the word as such, just the final prefix (a postfix?). Of course we have RS that refer to the officer as an Mavinist, and no evidance that they word itself has any negative connotations (unless its being said that bleiving the Falklands to be Argintinian is wrong?) I see no reason for its non use.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Suffix, not postfix. --Habap (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The claim of a negative connotation is utterly bogus, our Argentine colleagues are perfectly happy to see the word used. The use is sourced, as is Anaya's legendary antipathy toward the English, hence the caption is accurate. To put this into context a certain editor wants the picture of Anaya removed, everyone else is happy with the article as is. I would be happy to change the caption to something that conveyed Anaya's fervent belief in the justice of Argentina's claim, his anglophobia and the fact he was the driving force in the Junta's decision to invade. Galtieri may have been the frontman, as the navy didn't have the clout but Anaya was the kingmaker. The picture of Anaya, together with an appropriate caption to inform readers is appropriate. However, discussions can only move forward when the dicussion is reasonable, does not accuse editors of being racist or generally bad tempered. Also going to the NPOV noticeboard without having the courtesy to inform other editors was disruptive and needlessly rude. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Totally outside viewpoint: if I read an article, I should be able to either understand the language or look it up in an English-language dictionary. "Malvinist" satisfies neither condition. It seems to have appeared in one source, sure, but that does not create a word. And since this is a global encyclopedia (I'm Canadian), familiarity within a single country is also not enough to justify its use. For a while I was thinking maybe it meant someone who was born in the Malvinas/Falklands. Especially within an image caption where there is no room to explain the meaning, "Malvinist" seems inappropriate, I would support its rewording/removal. Presumably the meaning is "advocate for forcible reunification"? But I really have no idea what the precise meaning is... Franamax (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Current caption: "Admiral Jorge Anaya ardent malvinist[14] and anglophobe, was the driving force in the Junta's decision to invade[15]". If you can suggest something as compact, which contains the same information we'd be pleased to consider it. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternate caption:"Admiral Jorge Anaya was the driving force in the Junta's decision to invade[15]".

Talk about his anglophobic attitude in the main text. Include the term Malvinist if you can find an RS which explains what it means, otherwise don't use it; or directly quote the phrase which includes the term. (Hohum ^@) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I could agree to the revised caption, I would suggest moving the quotes to inline citations? Though before I do that I'd be interested to hear Jorge and Darius' opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I was busy reading Jorge Anaya to look for the basis of the caption wording, so I missed this last bit. I would have suggested the same as Hohum. The entire "ardent malvinist and anglophobe" phrase is not backed up in our own linked article, and the caption works just as well without it. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Anaya article could do with updating. The basis is the quote from Darius, it should be noted however, that the phrase is well known phrase in Argentina, so perhaps we are in danger of inadvertently ignoring a significant opinion on the matter. Hence, my suggestion to ask input from Darius or Jor70. That said I'm open to changing it, along the lines suggested. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I learned that my input about this issue is required, so I'am here again. First of all, a clarification. The adjective "Malvinist" is not used in its Spanish form (Malvinista) here in Argentina. In any case, during my teen years, I remember to hear the antonym, the verb Desmalvinizar (analogous to "Denazification") as a criticism to Raul Alfonsin's foreign policy towards Britain. Therefore, while the English term could be seen as a neologism, the word simply doesn't exist in Spanish.

Agreed with Wee Curry Monster last proposal; I think we should keep the term, which is supported by Middlebrook's book, but as a direct quote in the inline citation. The caption could be reworded to avoid the use of "Malvinist", which while based on reliable sources, is, after all, a neologism (I changed my mind since my last comment; note the use of quotation marks by Middlebrook). As for the "anglophobia" attributed to Anaya, we are still in need of a reliable source to cite. Anaya's article is irrelevant per WP:CIRCULAR. Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I can provide a source for anglophobia, that isn't an issue. Assuming there is no further dissension we can change it tomorrow when protection expires. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What is your proposal? --Keysanger 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not mine, its Hohum's above. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And done [6], any comments? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's OK with me, including Anaya's involvement in the main text would be fine too, IMO. (Hohum ^@) 23:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Text currently says "Admiral Jorge Anaya. Anaya was the main architect and supporter of a military solution for the long standing claim over the islands,[10] calculating that the United Kingdom would never respond militarily.[11]" Wee Curry Monster talk 00:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's OK with me. --Keysanger 16:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Name of the Article, Name of the Islands and Neutrality

As any person that lives in South America may contest, the most common and accepted name of the islands that are disputed between Argentina and England if "Islas Malvinas", or, in English, the "Malvinas Islands".

The name "Falklands Islands" is the name that the English gave to it, not a real translation for "Malvinas Islands" in the English language. Therefore, using only the name "Falklands Islands" in the article's title - and, maybe worse, during the whole text - may bring a sense of parciality, as if the official name of the islands was "Falklands Islands" instead of "Malvinas Islands". This denomination discussion is a direct reflect of the very discussion of the article, which is, whether these islands are legaly Argentinian territory -- in which case the proper name would be "Malvinas Islands" -- or English territory -- in which case the proper name would be "Malvinas Islands".

Calling the islands just by the name given by England -- not its English translated name -- and neglecting its Argentinian name during the whole article and its very title, one may assume that this contend has been already solved and that these islands are definitely English territory. In other words, this makes the article quite partial for the English part.

My suggestion is to change the title's name to "Falklans War (Malvinas War)" and that the islands are named "Falklands Islands / Malvinas Islands" during the whole text. Other solutions may also be suggested, but in any event both names must be applied in order to have a more impartial article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.88.34 (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Some relevant info on the names used for the Falklands in various countries. Of course, most relevant is the name used by the people of the Islands; every nation has the right to choose and change the name of its country (excepting names used by others too, as in the current case of Republic of Macedonia or that of German Austria in 1918-1919 – which is not the case of the Falklands). Apcbg (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts - I think Falklands is the most common term used for the islands in the English speaking world. Also, the official name of the Islands (presumably decided by the Falklands Legislative Assembly) is the Falkland Islands. The use of the name Malvinas is already acknowledged in the Falkland Islands article. Also the use of "Falkland Islands / Malvinas Islands" at every point in the article would be far too inelegant, instead we could swap the first instance of "Falkland Islands" for the ISO name, which is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". Additionally, no one has ever claimed the Falklands to be English territory, the Falklands are their own territory with certain arrangements with the United Kingdom. Rtdixon86 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note here to the OP, by English territory and England I think you perhaps mean British territory and United Kingdom (I'm not saying the islands are indeed British territory, just informing of the conventions involved). G. R. Allison (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The general practice on Falklands articles is that, in articles whose subject is significant to the dispute (as in this case), the first reference to the islands is written as "Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas)". This rule rightly reflects standard usage by neutral English-language sources - which generally mention the Argentine usage when discussing the dispute but use "Falkland Islands" or "Falklands" as primary usage.

Diplomatic language does not reflect common usage, and is evidence of nothing but the preferences of Argentine and British governments. Pfainuk talk 20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically the use of title Falklands and Falklands war should stand.Only in Argentina is the title Malvinas heard or used.If two people, one from Argentina and one from anywhere else discuss the Malvinas War, the non Argentinian may be confussed as to where and when this occured.However, use of the term Falklands and Falklands war would be understood globaly. This is why i think the term Falklands should stand. Malvinas is the recognised name for one nation, where as Falklands is recognised by all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by English n proud (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

not offense but I think you are already confussed --Jor70 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This statement is absolutely false and patently absurd. No one in Latin America refers to these island as the Falklands unless they are British or have never heard of the proper name of the islands as used by all of Central and South America. No one in Argentina refers to the islands as the Falklands. Remember as well that the islands were named long before any British lived there.24.218.110.84 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls, Jor70. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that there is a more than one (obvius) difference between Spanish and English regarding the names of the disputed islands.

In English the islands are always refered as Falkland, Falklands (+Island or Islands). The use of Malvinas or Malvinas Island(s) in English is very unusual and represents a heavy political view of the matter.

In Spanish, in contrast, was usual to call the islands Falklands or Malvinas. Beagle Channel cartography since 1881 shows (among others) a serie of old Argentine maps that bear the Name Islas Malvinas o Falkland, or Falkland oriental (now called Isla Soledad), Falkland occidental (now Isla Gran Malvina). Indeed until Image:Douclot-Nolte.1889.jpg all Argentine maps in the article bear the word Falkland.

So, it is correct when the es:WP writes "Malvinas o Falklands" because both words belong in fact to the Spanish language. Both are names given to the islands in Spanish.

I am not sure about the use of Malvinas in the en:WP. I think that some people want to establish it as an alternative name for the Falklands. Other editors want to extend the task of WP and teach the Spanish language in the article. --Keysanger 14:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

infoboxes

There are two infoboxes with the same title "Falklands War". That is confusing and IMO needless. Should we distribute the content of the little one ((Campaignbox Falklands War)) in to the big one ((Falklands War))? I think the ((Falklands War)) do it well. --Keysanger 21:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just change the title of one. The contents are distinctly different. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders

Shouldn't Margaret Thatcher be included in the Commander and Leaders table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.199.72 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, she wasn't part of the military command. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not disagreeing, but out of my own curiosity what does that mean exactly? Did she have no in depth part of the Strategic planning or say in how things were done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.225.217 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Falklands War Belligerents

I'm not sure how this works, but isn't the winner supposed to be on the left? British forces regained control of the islands, the Argentinians surrendered. And in terms of lives, too, the British lost less men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.57.82 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Manchester, it's supposed to be in alphabetical order. Else we couldn't write about ongoing wars, since we don't know who will win. And what about wars without any winners like the Iran–Iraq War?

World War I: <Allied (Entente) Powers> vs. <Central Powers>, World War II:<Allies> vs. <Axis>, Gulf War: <Coalition forces> vs. <Iraq>; I don't know if it's intentional or just a coincidence. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

File:FalklandsWarMontage3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:FalklandsWarMontage3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:The Sun (Gotcha).png

I removed this image, but was reverted. Can I ask why it is believed that it is needed? The image page didn't have a particularly coherent non-free use rationale, and the headline is mentioned only in passing. The image is clearly legitimate elsewhere, but it is not clear why it is here. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited this article, and I don't propose this as the basis of a FUR, but as someone who lived through it (me and 50+million other Brits ;) ), this to me is the iconic image of the Falklands war. It conveys a whole lot of meaning, good and bad, and neatly illustrates not only the historical event but the political mood at the time in the UK. I think the article would be very much worse off without it. Thparkth (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I can fully appreciate that (and I admit that this was before my time), but, as you say, that can hardly be the basis of a FUR. We have to ask whether the image actually adds to reader understanding of the article. The headline is mentioned in passing, but much more than that would be undue weight, and if it's only worth mentioning in passing, the need for a non-free image is... Questionable. It is used legitimately in a more specific article, but this summary article covering the entire war does not need to contain the image. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that it enhances the reader's understanding of how the war was treated in at least one popular segment of the UK media. Not only was the sinking itself a historic event, but the newspaper headline itself was a historic event which generated much controversy and commentary. No comprehensive treatment of the Falklands War can fail to discuss this newspaper cover, or to allude to the issues it raises. There is no better way to convey this information than by showing the front page itself. There is no doubt that removing this image from this article would leave most people scratching their heads in puzzlement, especially when there is absolutely no legal or ethical basis for doing so, and not even any explicit basis in wikipedia policy for it. Thparkth (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first things you say, and I was attempting to preempt that argument by saying "It is used legitimately in a more specific article, but this summary article covering the entire war does not need to contain the image." There is a subtle but important difference between enhancing "the reader's understanding of how the war was treated in at least one popular segment of the UK media" and significantly increasing readers' understanding of the article, which is what the NFCC require. Yes, a book on the war (a truly "comprehensive treatment of the Falklands War") would certainly include the image, but a summary article like this does not need to; instead, it can be found in more specific articles. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your understanding of contextual significance is incorrect in this case. Images are not to enhance "understanding of the article" per WP:NFCC, but rather "understanding of the topic." The "topic" in this case is the Falklands War, and as in any modern war, the public mood and media coverage of the events is a vital aspect of that topic. I'm afraid you are also wrong to suggest that we should not be trying to write articles that are comprehensive; in fact being comprehensive is one of the featured article criteria. The question of whether an article should explore a particular aspect of a topic is one best left to the editors working on the content - it should not be driven in reverse by copyright issues. Thparkth (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not seek articles that are fully comprehensive, we seek them that are appropriately comprehensive, and write them in summary style. Using that logic, any content which is appropriate in a subsidiary article is appropriate here, which is clearly not the case- otherwise, why have the subsidiaries at all? Yes, "[t]he question of whether an article should explore a particular aspect of a topic is one best left to the editors working on the content", but we have policies as to whether or not non-free content can be used. We can't just ignore the policies because "the editors working on the content" don't like them, if that's what you're trying to imply. I have no objection to the brief mention of the headline, and I have already said I feel it is appropriate; however, a brief mention of a headline does not mean that, automatically, a non-free image of the front page of the paper is required. That's the issue under question here- trying to phrase it as some kind of wider "the editors versus the policy" is going to confuse things... J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that your argument for removal is essentially this: the article should not explore this aspect of the topic, so the image is not necessary. I disagree. The editors of the article have chosen to explore media coverage, and the image is justifiably used in that context. There is no policy reason to remove it. I'm not sure what else there is to say. Thparkth (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not my argument. I have repeatedly said that the issue is adequately explored. What I am saying is that the brief mention of the headline is enough. The use of this non-free image does not add significantly to reader understanding of the topic, and so its use here is contrary to non-free content criterion 8. If you feel it is warranted, I recommend you add a useful, specific rationale to the image page, explaining what this image is adding to the article, and why that needs to be added. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The number of words dedicated to the headline in the article may be small, but they are important, as is the image. (Hohum ^@) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you feel the image is adding to the article, and why is it so important that it is used? J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It shows the reaction of a major news source in one of the combatant nations. As Thparkth has already said, it is "the iconic image of the Falklands war. It conveys a whole lot of meaning, good and bad, and neatly illustrates not only the historical event but the political mood at the time in the UK." I can't see how you can think that it doesn't add understanding to the topic of the article. (Hohum ^@) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur entirely with Hohum Blackshod (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The image removed was utterly iconic, that front page of the Sun was absolutely infamous during the war and afterward, it is featured in just about every book, every documentary, in fact I doubt you can pick up any reference work on the Falklands War and not see a discussion of that image. I really can't understand why anyone would want to remove it, its use is vital for conveying the media coverage of the war. Its like the article on Iwo Jima not having the flag raising. I'm stunned, genuinely stunned we're even having this discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm clearly fighting a losing battle here, but, again, the fact that the image is "iconic" and widely used does not mean that any old usage of it is legit. The question has to be whether the use meets the NFCC, and, so far as I can see, it does not. There is no kind of special exemption for images someone has decided are iconic, infamous or whatever else. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat a comment from my previous post, its use is justified on the basis that it is vital for conveying media coverage of the war. In particular:

“ whilst The Sun became notorious for its jingoistic and xenophobic headlines, including 20 April headline "Stick It Up Your Junta!",[105] and was condemned for the "Gotcha" headline following the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano.[113][114][115] ”

The image is used to illustrate the outrage felt at that headline. It does meet NFCC#8 specifically@

“ Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary. ”

This isn't a matter of special exemption, its use is justified on policy grounds. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

One, that's a guideline, not a policy. Two, the extent of the "critical commentary" is the phrase "the "Gotcha" headline". That's not commentary. We can't use a non-free image of everything that is mentioned in passing in the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that it isn't mentioned "in passing", its mentioned as a key commentary on press coverage during the war. And the image is vital in conveying the coverage. Its use is covered by FUR and is compliant with policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Gotcha" front-page is iconic for the media coverage of the Falklands War. It would be better to use our resources on finding the Argentine front-page with Invincible on fire. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

2nd image removal

The image had an incorect copyright tag, for info copyright expires after 25 years in Argentina. I've corrected it and restored the image to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but you're going to need to provide some more information- date of creation, date of publication and author would be a good start, evidence of public domain status in the United States would be a good next step. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

nonsense

The Soviet Union provided intelligence on British military movements That's not what the source says, the Russians (and Americans) attempted to detect the movements of ships in the South Atlantic as a unique opportunity in this "civil war" unleashed in the midst of the Cold War but there is no evidence (in fact was denied) to be given the information to the argentinians, who incidentally, were fanatically anticommunist. Please read the books! And Libya nothing to do with the Russians, it is well known the exchange of horses for military equipment made ​​by Teodoro Waldner, however most of the weapons were useless and can not be used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.152.78 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The source used is dubious to me. What makes "André F. Garcia, Brazil" or "www.traditioninaction.org" WP:RELIABLE?

Tradition In Action is committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions. TIA also works for a restoration of Christian civilization, adapted to contemporary historical circumstances.

(Hohum ^@) 15:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria of WP:RSN per WP:SPS. I've removed what was dubious but left the Libyan support as I'm aware of this. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Much more important than the SAM-7s, Libya provided Matras 530 and 550 missiles but were only ready to use when the war was nearly over. Spain 's bomb fuses were far more useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.152.78 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have a cite you can correct that yourself. See WP:RS and WP:V for guidance. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Alte irizar-2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Alte irizar-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jihad on images.

May I remind the readers of Falklands War that some of the images are going to be deleted:

• commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:FalklandsWarMontage3.jpg
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_27#File:The_empire_strikes_back_newsweek.jpg
• and of course Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:The_Sun_.28Gotcha.29.png

Unfortunately such discussions are always held far from the talk pages of the articles. This will attracts people with minor knowledge of the subject, e.g. why the images are needed here. A new busybody can every year threaten to delete the images, and it's very hard to dig up the same arguments at some out-of-the-way talk archives. If the debate was held here, or at the image pages, the busybodies can read it before they re-establish deletion proposals. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Another scalp for the self-proclaimed pencil necks' collection

As an act of bean-counting Fastily deleted File:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg, due to a minuscule majority of ONE. I didn’t know that the debate was over, since so many wanted to keep the image.

Some non-entities are degrading Wikipedia by removing the fair-use images. The usage of fair-use images is always an assessment, but these people have the compulsive idea that they are omniscient - but nobody has the knowledge to assess so many different images. They don't even listen to the occupational editors of the articles in question.

These fair-use hunters place the deletion debates far away from the relevant image and article discussions, hoping nobody will discover it until the "ImageRemovalBot removed deleted image" appears at My watchlist. Another benefit is that if the result was to keep the image, all the arguments will be difficult to dig up next time.

I’m so glad that I never managed to upload the bogus front-page with HMS Invincible on fire. It would have been such a waste of time just to see it deleted by ignorants. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that some editors genuinely believe that they have the only correct and complete understanding of Wikipedia policy, and that when they do these things they are carrying out the wishes of the broad Wikipedia community. In fact their understanding of policy is limited by their idealism and inability to see shades of gray, while popular support for their activities is almost certainly lower than they believe. But since these things are mainly determined at WP:FFD, and FFD is largely populated by other free-content idealists, there is a bit of an echo chamber effect going on. The solution is for ordinary, constructive editors - the kind who like to make articles better rather than worse - to get more involved in deletion discussions and remind the image deletionists that they don't speak for us. Personally, I have been an editor since 2004, and I the amount of vandalism-by-policy that goes on today is sickening me of the whole project. Thparkth (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to my own remarks above, this was not aimed at Fastily who is definitely not a bean counter, and who I credit with always working constructively and in good faith, even if I don't always agree with him ;) Thparkth (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been restored, so there is a chance to comment on the relisting. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of self-appointed people of this type wrecking Wikipedia. I call them licenced vandals.-MacRusgail (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sinking of ARA General Belgrano

This is the second time I've added this sentence:

The nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano on 2 May. Although the General Belgrano was outside the 200-mile exclusion zone, the Prime Minister of the day, Margaret Thatcher, authorised the attack. Three hundred and twenty-three members of Belgrano's crew died in the incident.

And it has been removed. Although I am Argentinian, I am sure that the article maintains its neutrality, and the reference I have is the BBC website. The information I am providing is not a minor detail considering that the attack was outside the exclusion zone, it was authorized by the Prime Minister of the day and half of Argentine casualties were generated in this attack.

The edition summary by John Nevard(talk) says:

(this is already mentioned in the previous paragraph, once is more than enough)

But I couldn't find it. So I would like to know why you deleted my contribution. Thank you very much

nahuelsw (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the sentence, but I think the problem is with the emphasis on the exclusion zone. Your wording implies (with it's "although" and the emphasis on the number of deaths) that the fact that the ship was outside the exclusion zone is pertinent and that the decision to sink the Belgrano, with its associated loss of lives, thus was immoral or illegal. This is factually incorrect and quite misleading for readers - exclusion zones are set up "for the benefit of neutral shipping" as our article on the subject notes. Thparkth (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Nahuel, it seems that in Argentina we have the wrong idea about the sinking of the Belgrano (see [7]). I've added a link to the 'controversy' section in the ARA General Belgrano article (which could be more straightforward IMHO). Thatcher's authorization could be an interesting piece of info to add, depending on how and when it was done. Regards. --Langus (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit is factually incorrect. Mrs Thatcher did not personally authorise the attack, the war cabinet allowed for a change in the rules of engagement that allowed the attack to take place. Rules of Engagement are limitations on the actions of military commanders that preclude certain offensive/defensive actions that are perfectly legal within the limits of the Law of Armed Conflict. Aside from anything on 23 April, the UK Government through the Swiss Legation issued a warning that the UK would attack any Argentine warship no matter what the position if it posed a threat to British ships. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Position of third party countries

I'm not convinced this belongs in the aftermath article, which deals with the period after the war. This section deals with the position of 3rd party countries during the war. I would suggest those changes are undone. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 15:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. Best, Apcbg (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just made swathe of changes, mainly reference maintenance, so please be careful not to undo those when reinserting it. (Hohum ^@) 17:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it ocurred during the war and therefore I added a short paragraph about the circumtances and reasons of support. But a deep and in extenso analysis of every country's support as intended in the reinserted (unreferenced and incomplete) section belongs more to the aftermath than to the main article. This view is the reason why the (sub-)sections "The visit of Pope John Paul II", "MI6 activity", "Norwegian intelligence", "Soviet intervention" and "Survival and recovery of wounded British soldiers" are in "Aftermath" and not in the main article as chronologically expected. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede Grammar/Slashes

Don't really see the grammar issues with the current lede, that has been recently the subject of changes. Could you identify what the issue is? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No major issues, just think it looks a bit untidy when a word (like "or") would do; especially in the case of Falklands Conflict/Crisis, which makes it look like it's one long term rather than two separate ones. My reading of MOS:SLASH indicates that they should be discouraged where possible. Best, JonC^Talk 09:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK I was unaware of that aspect of MOS. As its largely a matter of personal preference I've self-reverted. No dramas. Sorry to have troubled you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks for discussing. I see you've worked pretty hard on this article so completely understand the revert. JonC^Talk 13:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Falklands Conflict, not Falklands War.

War was never actually declared: technically, there was no "Falklands War". The term seems to have lapsed into the vernacular in the intervening years since the conflict; it should more correctly be referred to as the "Falklands Conflict". Alexibrow (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article title per WP:CommonName, "Conflict" mentioned in lede. What more could one want? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A formal declaration of war is not a requisite for the existence of a war. If I remember correctly, the Vietnam War was never declared, either. "War" is better here than "conflict", to set apart the article about the long and ongoing sovereignty conflict (detailed somewhere else) and this article, which is specifically about the 1982 armed conflict Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before example. There is an option to search the talk pages archives at the top of this page. (Hohum ^@) 15:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves me right, there are plenty of wars which were never declared.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What value is served by "(Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas or Guerra del Atlántico Sur"? I can see that adding (aka South Atlantic War) [8] would help readers. This is the English language Wikipedia, and anyone searching Wikipedia for Malvinas rather than Falklands will easily find this article already Malvinas_Islands--Flexdream (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of convention we provide both the English and Spanish language names. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. Do you think it would help to also add 'South Atlantic War' as I've come across that term being used. --Flexdream (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not come across that one myself, you have to balance WP:DUE coverage of what may be a WP:FRINGE term. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Before the British attacked the Falklands, the British and Argentine governments..."

How is that neutral? The Argentinian forces invaded the Falklands, and the British launched a counter-invasion: "attacking" on the British behalf doesn't come into it. --90.220.162.146 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Argentine couter-attack plans

According to D. J. Thorp's book published in 2011, there is limited evidence, mostly based on radio signals interception and captured documents, that the Argentine forces on West Island planned a counter attack against the remaining British forces at San Carlos Bay for June 15. This, of course, was cancelled due to the ceasefire on June 14. (Thorp, D.J. The Silent Listener - British electronic surveillance, Falklands 1982, Spellmount, 2011, pages 145-148, 182-183. ISBN 978-0-7524-6029-1) SV1XV (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I find that difficult to believe as they had no ships and no helicopters by that time. How did they plan to get across Falklands Sound? Swim? And in full view of the Royal Navy, without naval or air support. Mmmm, sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - West Falkland would have been under surveillance, and any evidence of forces gathering for a counter-attack would have been published well before now. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this source (p. 146), the Argentinians had salvaged and repaired one of their ships. The author does not give evidence about the name of the ship but he "strongly suspects" that it could be the ARA Bahia Buen Suceso. I am also unwilling to believe this story as well, so I prefer to discuss it on the talk page. SV1XV (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I like this bit in the about the author section - He personally briefed Col. Mike Smith VC (contrary to standing orders) before the battle of Goose Green. - So who is this unknown VC recipient Col Mike Smith. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In his book (chapter 10, "The battle for Goose Green", p.116), Thorp states that he briefed Lt. Colonel H Jones, of 2 Para, who is subsequently called "Colonel H". SV1XV (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well thats BS for a start, Colonel H did not get any of the SIGINT available as part of his planning. One of the lessons of Goose Green was sharing of SIGINT with land forces in the Falklands. Also the ARA Bahia Buen Suceso was disabled by Harrier attack and subsequently grounded after breaking loose in a storm. A useless hulk she was towed out to sea and used for gunnery practise. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Both accounts (planned counter-attack and briefing of Colonel H) are supported by weak and limited evidence, but they cannot be easily disproved. Obviously Thorp was very careful when he chose the material for his book. SV1XV (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede warning

Can anyone explain this warning in the lede? "Please do not change the lede without discussing in talk first, please do not remove this message either. The lede evolved as a painful compromise and editors are requested not to make changes without discussing in talk first." Looking through the archives, this appears to have been added unnecessarily, as no such compromise exists for this article. If there isn't I'll remove it. There are a few grammar changes I'm going to make - like improving 5 word sentences. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh please don't, that dates back to 2007 and it stems from the attempt by Irish nationalist to have Malvinas War put on the same level as Falklands War. It went all the way to arbcom. Its a can of worms I wouldn't want to open again. The discussion is all over the place and if you really want to waste a day I can point you to it. Trust me its not worth it though. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A 4 year old debate prevents editors from making grammar changes without passing them for approval here first? That isn't how wikipedia works. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There was that. But there was also dispute more generally: this was a multi-year dispute on several articles that eventually managed to reach a stable compromise only after many of the participants were blocked and banned. At the time, the dispute as to how and whether we should refer to the word "Malvinas" wasn't that far short of the dispute as to how and whether we should refer to "Danzig" or "Gdansk" (though I believe that this one - only just - managed to avoid an Arbcom), and I don't see why anyone would want to reprise it. Pfainuk talk 15:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they wouldn't, but that isn't explained or considered in the warning, which just smacks of wp:own. I've been bold, made some grammar changes and modified the warning a little. I hope everyone will see this as a constructive edit, and not some attempt to force a political viewpoint, which seems to be the concern of the warning. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to revert the content, which I acknowledge as an improvement, but please change the warning back. It was made that strong for a reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no problem with focussing the warning much more closely to the point at hand (which is the balance of political viewpoints and specifically the use of English- and Spanish-language names), but I don't support the change made because it does not appear to cover those issues. Pfainuk talk 15:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm happy for it to be more carefully focussed. At present it is too strong. Ideally it should also point editors to a discussion on the subject. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@Langus: was there a reason why you reverted my change here? Pfainuk talk 16:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I assumed it was an accident, so I've just re-added it. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I figured it probably was, but I was concerned that if I just rereverted and there was a good reason, we'd just start edit warring instead of addressing it. Pfainuk talk 16:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It was, indeed; I apologize Pfainuk. Thank you Steve for spotting it. For the record, I believe this is definitely a positive change. --Langus (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

By the way, for all the discussion, no one noticed that Brigadier Anthony Wilson was missing from the infobox and it appears there is no such article on wikipedia. A major ommission. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher should be in the Commanders and Leaders section. She made many decisions in the war, the biggest decision was probaly the sinking of the belgrano. (Epdavies100 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

No, because she was not a military commander. For information, Thatcher did not personally order the sinking of the Belgrano, the war cabinet approved a change in the rules of engagement that permitted the attack to take place. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It says commanders and leaders, which includes the military's civilian overseers, not just "military commanders," i.e., persons of military rank with operational or field command of forces. The war cabinet itself includes the Prime Minister -- who was Thatcher in the case of the Falklands War. She was therefore a "leader" of the war effort. The World War I entry lists two British Prime Ministers as "leaders" (Asquith and Lloyd George) and the Second World War entry lists Churchill, none of whom were "military commanders" at the onset of war. Churchill's military service was long past by the start of World War II (he retained a ceremonial role in his former regiment as patron -- titularly Colonel-in-Chief -- but that role was a non-operational one and held, in many cases, by patrons of non-military background). The position of First Lord of the Admiralty is also typically held by civilians and was in any case relinquished when Churchill became Prime Minister. Moreover, the British Armed Forces entry states that, "[c]onsistent with longstanding constitutional convention . . . the Prime Minister holds de facto authority over the armed forces." So Thatcher did have personal authority to make decisions during the war, although in practice she probably did so in consultation with her cabinet. One need not be a flag officer in order to be a "leader" of the armed forces under the British constitutional order. "It is commonly accepted that the [royal] prerogative's [armed forces] deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise and is not statutorily bound to consult others." Thus, it's fair to say that Thatcher should be included in the commanders and leaders section of this article. 220.255.1.77 (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Its difficult to know how to respond to you as your IP address is hopping all over the place. I take it you're familiar with wikipedia as you have knowledge of syntax and the use of the talk page. The section in question is for military leaders, not civilian Government. Per this convention we do not include the civilian Government. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You may begin by addressing the substantive points raised, rather than expressing puzzlement about IP addresses. The section in question says "commanders and leaders." It does not say that it is only "for military leaders." There is no convention that civilian government be excluded, or Churchill would be excluded (are you denying that Churchill was a war leader?), as would Roosevelt, since the Commander-in-Chiefship is "[u]nquestionably" a "civilian office." That there is no such convention is clear: the leading article on World War II includes both Churchill and Roosevelt. The principle of civilian political leadership having supreme authority over the armed forces is a venerable constitutional principle, based on longstanding convention and practice on both sides of the Atlantic. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 751 (1974) ("The military establishment is subject to the control of the civilian Commander in Chief and the civilian departmental heads under him"); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 325 (1946) (Murphy, J., concurring) ("supremacy of the civil over the military is one of our great heritages."); James Wither, Civil-Military Relations in the United Kingdom: Tradition, Continuity, and Change, in Callaghan & Kernic (eds.), Armed Forces and International Security: Global Trends and Issues 73 (2003) ("Since the Bill of Rights of 1689 . . . Britain's armed forces have been subject to civilian control and the rule of law."). There is no convention -- whether internally on Wikipedia or in Anglo-American law -- that the armed forces are not subordinate to civilian-political leadership. Since the convention you're relying on does not exist, Thatcher stays. 220.255.1.88 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I did respond to your substantive point, the point is that the civilian Government did not control the campaign and Thatcher was not a "war leader" as you suggest. The conduct of the military campaign was left to the military commanders with broad directives from the War Cabinet. That the armed forces are subordinate to civilian Government does not change the substantive point. BTW it is desirable to convince people to accept your proposed change via WP:BRD, edit warring and statements like you just made are counter productive. See WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You did not. It's "points" in the plural. And you're incorrect: the Prime Minister as head of the war cabinet has control over the war. This is so even if he leads by directive and delegates operational decisions to those in the field:

1. "Britain's armed forces [are] subject to civilian control and the rule of law." See Wither.
2. The Prime Minister controls the decision to deploy. "It is commonly accepted that" the Prime Minister "has personal discretion in [the] exercise" of the "deployment power," which is "the ultimate power to send forces to war." See the Select Committee.

The evidence is plain. Even if we ignore the civilian leadership's power to control the rules of engagement -- itself an operational change -- the sources still state that they have "control," so your claim that they did not is false.

Nor have you provided any support for your assertion that there is a convention against listing civilians as war leaders. The World War II article clearly lists civilian leadership, contrary to your "convention." The template guidelines do not specify military leaders to the exclusion of civilian leadership. Rather, "prominent or notable leaders should be listed," without regard as to whether they were military or civilian (and indeed, without regard to the type of control they exercised). That approach has the virtue of permitting Churchill to be listed as a war leader.

As far as I can tell, you provide no sources and no basis for your contentions (I have provided several sources to the contrary). There's no basis for your "convention" beyond a citation to an archived discussion that produced no consensus and contained only unsourced assertions. 220.255.1.86 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I have to say I agree with IP. While it remains true that "Thatcher did not personally order the sinking of the Belgrano", she was part of the war cabinet that purposely made that possible. In fact, she was a prominent member of that cabinet. Template:Infobox_military_conflict states that "For battles, this should include military commanders (...). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed".

As noted by IP contributor, WWI and WWII articles illustrate this point, as well as Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), Gulf War (note John Major), Iran–Iraq War, 1948 Arab–Israeli War, etc, etc. They all list political leaders; that's why the section also says "and leaders". We are treating this article as an article about a battle, when we should be following the standards of that of a war.

I believe it's relevant to note that until 2007 Thatcher was listed as a commander, but in February 2010 she was removed. --Langus (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also agree she should be in there. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Theres a surprise. No you're wrong Cabinet Government is about collective decision making, it is not about individual leadership. The War Cabinet set broad campaign goals, rules of engagement but it did not lead the military campaign. To put in Margaret Thatcher alone would mislead, she did not act alone as you would have us believe. So again, no I oppose this change to the current consensus. If you're going to insist on Margaret Thatcher then you should put in the whole War Cabinet. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because "for wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed". Maybe some of them qualify, maybe not. --Langus (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well as they were all Ministers of State that argument is fallacious, being senior members of the cabinet means they're both notable and prominent. And all had the same say, Britain has a Prime Minister not a President, decisions are made collectively not by decree. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He's not wrong. You are. He did not say that the Prime Minister acts alone (as you would have us believe), he said that the Prime Minister was a prominent member of the war cabinet. Which is true: the Prime Minister is "head of the War Cabinet." That's a "prominent" position, however you slice it: the duties of the office "as Prime Minister and head of the War Cabinet" include "close[ly] working" with "every aspect of the war and every branch of it in every theatre in which it is being fought." See Hansard, Central Direction of the War, 381 H.C. Deb. 224, 227 (5th ser. 1942), and it is "commonly accepted that the [royal] prerogative's deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise." This makes the Prime Minister both "prominent" and "notable" -- more so than his peers.

It's true that the war cabinet engages in collective decision making. But there's also room for individual leadership. Teams require teamwork but do not preclude leadership -- this is obvious to anyone who has played a team sport. More pertinently, it's largely immaterial whether the Prime Minister acts alone (or not): one can be "prominent" whether one acts alone or in concert with others. As Prime Minister and head of their respective war cabinets, Churchill, Lloyd George, and Thatcher were "prominent" and thus merit inclusion. 220.255.1.87 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm not keen on including politicians as leaders in the context of conflict, although to an extent that's because I don't like them getting ideas above their station.

Whilst politicians set direction that is then executed through the military chain of command with exceptions to the authority available to the military chain of command passed back to the politicians to allow them some scope for interference. AS already identified hey set the environment within which LOAC is constrained. The point of debate around the Belgrano is a usful illustration. Many ROEREQs will be approved within the military chain of command, but occasionally when a ROEREQ is likely to have a political repercussion beyond the military effect that is passed into the political sphere. Essentially LOAC and ROE are legal and politicians are neither qualified to comment or empowered to do so, a ROEREQ passed to the cabinet would already have been identified as "legal" by the LEGADs, the question being asked is "whilst this is legal, is it politically desirable".

Essentially politicians set political direction, they don't "command" operations.

Also, for what its worth, I'd be more open to including them in a total war situation, such as the WWII example, although I'm still not that keen. The Corporate situation was very firmly not in the same range.

ALR (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"I don't like them getting ideas above their station" is not a valid reason. The rest of what you say is unsourced assertion. The Attorney General was part of the Falklands War Cabinet and was consulted on the ROE and the imposition of the exclusion zone in his ministerial capacity. See Lawrence Freedman, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Vol. II: War and Diplomacy 22 (2005) ("The Attorney General . . . was also a regular as a result of the large number of legal matters that had to be addressed"). He was both qualified and empowered to do so. Your ruminations are incorrect. 220.255.1.90 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst you may not see it as a valid reason it is at least moderately amusing. Usefully when dealing with politicians and LegAds that helps to alleviate the general atmosphere of pomposity both species of vermin generate.

I'm still not convinced but it's clear that the majority opinion differs. That's fair enough, it's as arbitrary as any other decision around here.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take an order from a politician...

ALR (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with ALR's reasoning. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That reasoning has no basis in law or fact. Whereas "the chain of command within the police stops with the chief constable" and the government may not "give him or her instructions on the operational use of the police," "[t]his is not the case for the armed forces." A.W. Bradley & K.D. Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law 331 (2003). 220.255.1.90 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

full protection

I've fully protected it for the time being. Can we get some eyes from the military history wikiproject to comment? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say that both approaches above are theoretically suitable. In this case, it would make more sense to the reader to maintain the link to Margaret Thatcher in the section above in the infobox but not place her in the list on pragmatic grounds: she was clearly in a different role to other UK personnel, but we can't easily demonstrate that in the limited space. Basically, the IP above has a point that she qualifies to be in the list, but I don't believe it is useful to the reader to include her. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully concur with Grandiose's reasoning and conclusion. Apcbg (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with the opposite approach. It's completely unsourced and at odds with the approach taken in other war articles. Moreover, it's patently useful to know who the Argentine leader's opposite counterpart was. 220.255.1.89 (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a wider ranging discussion on the use of political leaders in war infoboxes to be had, but perhaps here isn't the best place to have it. In this particular circumstance though, I would agree that Maggie should be included in the infobox. This was a war rather than a battle, and the decision to send a task force to the Falklands in the first place was as much a political decision as it was military (if not more so). Added to this, the general format for wars is to include political leaders, as the IP editor has correctly pointed out. Finally, perhaps it's worth reminding everyone that infoboxes are supposed to summarise the article's content. Maggie's name appears five times in the article proper, more than any other name in the disputed field of the infobox. Admiral Fieldhouse on the other hand doesn't appear at all. One might ask the question then, what his role was in this conflict and why he's in the infobox, when the Prime Minister isn't? Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Margaret Thatcher should be listed as a leader Mztourist (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As Admiral Fieldhouse was CINCFLEET of Operation Corporate, I would very much object to his removal. The fact that Margaret Thatchers name appears in the article is not a good reason of itself to have her in the inbox. Prince Andrew gets a mention shall we put him in as well? The infobox is supposed to list military commanders and leaders, Margaret Thatcher was part of the War Cabinet, whose role was to defined objectives, rules of engagement etc. Further the War Cabinet was about collective leadership, we either put the full war cabinet in to be consistent or limit to military leaders. To pick only Margaret Thatcher is to imply she acted in a presidential fashion and thats misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what it implies. What it implies is that Thatcher acted in a prime ministerial fashion, as a prominent war leader. She was head of the war cabinet. Her inclusion is a reflection of her prominence. "War is an intensely prime ministerial activity." Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders since 1945 103 (2000). It's a "unique role," that is "define[d]" by "her responsibilities and powers during war." Id. In practice, the modern conduct of war is "the domain of a few people," and "in extreme cases can become the Prime Minister's war, as with . . . Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands." Nigel White, Democracy Goes to War: British Military Deployments under International Law 26 (2009). Thus the war cabinet has been described as a "commission with the Prime Minister as the dominating and directing force . . . supplemented by [a] system of delegation." Maurice Hankey, Government Control in War 41 (1945).

Historians have unambiguously described Thatcher as a "war leader." See, e.g., Hugh Rogers, Review of Battle of the Falklands by Max Hastings & Simon Jenkins, 71(2) Naval Review 163 (1983) ("She emerged as a remarkable war leader."); Christopher Collins, Margaret Thatcher, Churchill Archives Centre ("As a war leader, Thatcher proved impressive to the electorate"); Peter Byrd, British Defence Policy: Thatcher and Beyond 110 (1991) ("Thatcher was personally converted by the events of 1982 into a successful war leader."); Tom Buchanan, Europe's Troubled Peace: 1945-2000 203 (2006) ("the Falklands . . . elevated Thatcher from a mere politician to a successful war leader."); Duncan Watts, A Glossary of UK Government and Politics 262 (2007) ("Her role as war-leader enabled her to adopt the Churchillian mantle"). There is nothing misleading about this. Thatcher's role was to lead. To claim otherwise is to defy history.

What's misleading is your insistence that the infobox is reserved for military leaders to the exclusion of civilian leaders. Neither the template guidelines nor other war articles support that practice. 220.255.1.92 (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The template does say - the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed Thatcher as seen above was a notable leader. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You could drop the titles to create space for her addition, per World War I and others. I wouldn't be opposed. But I do think it's silly to argue over. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

So was the whole war cabinet, to single out Thatcher is incorrect. Why is everyone ignoring a basic point? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Because that point has been refuted ad nauseum. The whole war cabinet is not equally prominent. Only Thatcher is described as a war leader. Why are you ignoring this basic fact? 220.255.1.77 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that the only real reasoning (with several variations on the theme) for not including Maggie is her status as a political, rather than military leader. As there appears to be a broad consensus that political leaders are included in infoboxes for articles on wars (per the infobox talk page and other articles), I suggest that if anyone feels strongly about this matter, they take it up either at Template talk:Infobox military conflict or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. That way a consistent approach to the inclusion of political leaders in the infobox in all such articles can be decided. Here is not an appropriate venue to debate it.

PS. I’d have thought it was fairly obvious that I’m not advocating removing a Commander in Chief Fleet. Rather I’m pointing out a gaping void in the article’s content. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually no it wasn't obvious - text is not the best medium for conveying nuance. In passing may I ask why the point about cabinet Government is being ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You can ask, but I must point out that all I'm seeing on your part is selective attention when it comes to responding to the numerous points that are presented in favour of including Maggie. For what it's worth, your point about the War Cabinet is moot. Thatcher was the head of the country at the time of the conflict - that is the main logic behind including her. Similarly, the role of the war cabinet is not relevant to any other article - WWI or WWII. Besides, Thatcher formed and chaired the war cabinet. Getting tied down in the exact political dimensions of the cabinet's role is unnecessary. As I said, if you favour removing all political leaders from infoboxes, take it up on one of the other talk pages. Not here. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

True. And in any case Curry Monster is quite wrong about how the war cabinet works. 220.255.1.93 (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually no I did listen and address those points - I just don't agree. You mention "political leaders", so why only one? Mentioning only Thatcher implies a presidential style role that is not exactly true. I also note that there is a number of people who agreed with me that it wasn't appropriate to include Margaret Thatcher in case you missed that. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Only one because the Prime Minister's role is unique, and because she dominated the war cabinet. Because she's described as a war leader whereas the rest aren't. Because she's the head of the war cabinet, whereas the rest aren't. Because the power to deploy the armed forces is personally vested in her, and not others. It's a prime ministerial style role. What has 'presidential' got to do with anything? Silly red herring. 220.255.1.85 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't addressed the main point that several editors have pointed out - the existing consensus implied by the infobox talk page and on other articles. What you are suggesting will result in a fundamental change to the use of the infobox not only here, but at numerous other articles as well. This is not the appropriate place to discuss such a change, and I won't be discussing it any further here. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree, guidelines are not rules, they are open to interpretation not to mention the application of a little common sense. The world of infoboxes will not come crashing down because of how the guideline is applied here. Don't you think thats just a trifle exaggerated. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You pretended there was a convention that didn't exist. It's been proven since that the convention is actually the opposite. Now you're jettisoning the guidelines because the convention arising from those guidelines is at odds with your position. 220.255.1.77 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hiding behind an IP address to make snide remarks is pretty pathetic. Please grow up, we both know I said no such thing. Now if you can't make a constructive contribution to a discussion let the grown ups get on with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We both know you did. "Per this convention we do not include the civilian Government" was what you said. Denying it is craven and self-defeating. Your personal attacks are also unwarranted, especially as I have provided meticulous support for my claims (almost 20 sources!), and you have provided none. 220.255.1.69 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was mistaken about that guideline, you spotted a mistake I made. Well done, you can have a gold star for smugness. Feel better? However, preaching about personal attacks as you have indulged in them constantly is rather hypocritical though isn't it? You are of course welcome to have the last word. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you preached about personal attacks first. I didn't bring them up until you did. Nor have I indulged in them constantly. The timeline proves you engaged in personal attacks (15:03) and preached about them (20:43) long before I said they were unwarranted (22:47). 220.255.1.73 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As it happens no, you were being what we refer to as a WP:DICK, so earlier whilst irritated I made a remark that for me is uncharacteristic. That I regret and I really don't see the point of indulging in a tit for tat argument about who started it. M'kay? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. 220.255.1.92 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be clear by now that the majority opinion is for inclusion, and the point made about convention in other articles is reasonable, although I'll reserve opinion on whether it's possible to ever achieve a representative global policy given the range of political systems that the convention applies to.

To an extent I can also understand the perspective of including Thatcher as an individual. She's developed an almost mystical aura around her over the Falklands, even within the military people who should know better after everything else she did to emasculate the British Armed Forces. Add to that the majority of people not really appreciating the implications of Cabinet government with that represented in the form of the PM. That was exacerbated by Blair, but Thatcher went a fair way down that path herself.

There are a number of very different arguments that can be made than have been, most of them somewhat more persuasive than what's presented. The fact that nobody has made them doesn't change the majority view.

ALR (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely I made the point that to single Thatcher out as the sole leader is not entirely accurate. I would accept as a compromise including the War Cabinet but not just Thatcher herself. She did not make decisons alone. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I agree that it's not accurate, but it's what the majority seem to prefer and I can understand some of the thinking that leads to that conclusion.

ALR (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Re this revert, I think we can say that there is a consensus now, and the only ongoing discussion is on your part Wee Curry Monster. Looking above I see six editors supporting inclusion, two objecting and two who are largely indifferent (Grandoise and ALR - no offence guys). Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No we don't have a concensus, concensus is not a vote and I suggested a quite reasonable compromise. You have a majority and could edit war as a tag team to force a change if you like but that isn't the same thing now is it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it amounts to much the same thing. More editors support a certain change. How that is enforced is down to you I guess. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, concensus building should include considering all relevant viewpoints. A perfectly reasonable comment is being ignored here. And no WP:TAG is definitely not the same thing. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but I think you need to read wp:consensus again. A unanimous verdict is not required. Your viewpoint has been considered, and I'm afraid that most editors don't see this the way you do. Added to which, there is an existing consensus on the matter of inclusion. I don't see that there's much left to discuss. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say it was required to be unanimous? It does however require reasonable viewpoints to be considered. And deliberately ignoring a view or airily dismissing it is not considering it. And again above you avoid discussing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You are saying there is no consensus because you don't agree with it. I'm going to say this quite flatly and only once more; your viewpoint on the war cabinet is moot and irrelevant, per the consensus already established elsewhere. If you feel the exact intricacies of the British government should be reflected in the infobox, you need to discuss that at a more general forum, because it doesn't just affect this article. I'm all for open discussion on the subject, but not on an article by article basis. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? Where did I say there was no concensus solely because I disagreed with it? Looking through the dicussion I can't find it. I only see you putting words in my mouth that were never there. More over it seems a determination not to consider a point by denigrating the editor who makes it.

I only see an argument from authority from you, which is basically there is a guideline and you seem to feel it must be slavishly followed to the letter of the law. So we treat an article on a War of National Survival in the same way in exactly the same way as a rather unusual conflict like the Falklands War. And we have a one size fits all description of what is a "War Leader", well Margaret Thatcher was no Winston Churchill. You're wrong it should be considered on an article by article basis, because one size does not fit all. Guidelines are just that, guidelines, they are not rules to be slavishly obeyed by fools and for the guidance of wise men. Slàinte mhath. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that consensus in Wikipedia is a fallacy in general, and where one is dealing with a binary decision then it's not something that can ever be delivered. There is no scope for a compromise solution in this instance. If the majority vote for something then live with it.

ALR (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But its not a binary decision, there are a range of options. To reduce it to a binary decision means no room to accommodate other viewpoints. Slàinte mhath. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record I found Langus' accusation of filibustering lacking in good faith and grossly offensive.

I've also added the War Cabinet who you will note are all notable political leaders. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

An edit I see no consensus for. Could you perhaps explain what your definition of consensus is, and why you think it hasn't been reached? I shall be most interested to hear it. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A concensus is ideally when there is general agreement among all participants and where it reflects all relevant viewpoints in the literature. And specifically where all relevant viewpoints are considered and weighed. What we had here was a editor with a history of edit warring, making a bad faith attack (ironic given his past history) of filibustering and imposing a solution before a concensus was agreed.

BTW where is the objection to putting in the War Cabinet? You simply ignored the point. So I made a WP:BOLD edit. An edit I am open to discussing if you feel it inappropriate to the point where we can both agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for not including the entire war cabinet have already been addressed above -- reasons which you ignore. What's ironic is that you're accusing another editor of bad faith while at the same time making bad faith attacks on me ("grow up"; "hiding behind IP"; "pathetic") that I find grossly offensive. 220.255.1.84 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion anywhere for why the members of the War Cabinet are not notable political leaders? So for what reason are they not notable? I see plenty of people claiming they have supplied one and claiming I've ignored them but none whatsoever in reality. So I have reverted, I won't do so again if a reasonable discussion is forthcoming. Can we stop the stupid edit wars please. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC) To add, if you're going to insist on including political leaders at least be consistent and include them all. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The reasons were stated here, here, and here. Note lack of reply from you in every case -- you were ignoring them. There is no inconsistency. As previously noted, only the Prime Minister has been described as a war leader. By contrast, none of the other members of her war cabinet have been so described. 220.255.1.68 (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

[9] Does not refute or address the point. You merely state that it has been refuted and state that the War Cabinet are not equally prominent. The guideline states notable political leaders, clearly you have not addressed my comment. Member of the War Cabinet are all notable political leaders and played a key role in the decisions on the war.
[10] Does not refute or address the point. You state the Prime Minister's role is unique. So is the role of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Minister and the Attorney General. All are notable notable political leaders. You also assert the power to deploy the armed forces is vest in her alone, that is untrue.
[11] Does not refute or address the point. You merely source a series of opinions from a number of authors. We deal in WP:FACTs not WP:OPINIONs.
You will also note in each case I replied to point out you were not addressing this. The guideline states notable political leaders, you are edit warring to exclude notable political leaders and your arguments for excluding them don't stand up to scrutiny. You could paraphrase your argument as I've a ton of books about Margaret Thacther and I can source a ton of opinions bigging up her role. So can you give a reason for excluding them as your position is far from being consistent. Wee Curry Monster talk 03:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Except the guidelines say "notable leaders," not "notable political leaders." Meaning they should be notable in relation to the war and noted as such -- as "war leader[s]" -- not notable simply because they are politicians. Not all members of the war cabinet are notable war leaders: only the Prime Minister has been noted as such. You can't be a notable war leader if you haven't been noted as one.

2. The power to deploy the armed forces is vested in the Prime Minister: "It is commonly accepted that the prerogative's deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise and is not statutorily bound to consult others." See House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fifteenth Report (2006). None of the others are unique in that regard -- not even the Defence Minister, whose role is subsumed by the Prime Minister's. See Badsey et al., The Falklands Conflict Twenty Years On: Lessons for the Future 61 (2005) ("in times of war the role of Defence Secretary has to be undertaken by the Prime Minister."). "War is an intensely prime ministerial activity." Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders since 1945 103 (2000). But it's not an intensely deputy prime ministerial activity, or an intensely foreign secretarial activity, or an intensely attorney-esque activity -- none of those roles are unique in the relevant sense.

3. I have provided meticulous support for my claims (nearly 20 reliable sources!) refuting your point, whereas you have provided none. You rely solely on opinion (principally your own), yet purport to lecture me about WP:SOURCEs? What you characterize as "a series of opinions from a number of authors" were actually citations to reliable sources (historians, academic publications, books, a professional military journal, a textbook on administrative law) noting the Prime Minister's dominant role as a war leader -- no such notability exists for the rest of her war cabinet; none have been noted as "war leaders" in their own right.

Your failure to adduce any evidence for their inclusion makes the case for their exclusion. 220.255.1.77 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Cobblers to be frank.

1. Members of the War Cabinet are not notable war leaders according to you. 'cos you say so is basically your argument.

2. Again opinion not fact. You mix the theoretical powers of Prime Minister, which are not applied in Custom and Practise. As the UK does not have a written constitution much is done on the basis of custom and practise. You clearly know this but are misrepresenting theoretical powers to "win" an argument.

3. Trying argument from authority? Source: Lawrence Freedman, Official History of the Falklands War p21. emphasised the importance of a Small War Cabinet meeting regularly and taking decisions, also that day-to-day oversight was to be provided by...which came to be known as the War Cabinet. This became the critical instrument of crisis management and on p.22 some real meaning would be given to the concept of collective responsibility. Just a sample of sources at my disposal supporting that point. Spamming a load of quotes is not a substitute for mature discussion as you seem to think. Neither is this meticulous, its verbage and intellectually bankrupt.

Your final point is defunct. You seem determined to "win" at all costs but sorry this article doesn't exist for that purpose. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss not to battle as you seem determined to do. I note that I was prepared to compromise to allow for Margaret Thatcher to be included, you seem to be unable to countenance anything other than winning.

I still don't see a reason for excluding them and your determination to do so is looking increasing shaky. I will be restoring it presently if I don't see a coherent argument. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

1. No. The argument is that they aren't notable war leaders because they haven't been noted as such. You can't be a notable war leader if you haven't been noted as one. Unless you can provide a source that says they are "war leaders," you have no case.

2. Your own assertions are opinion, not fact. You have been debunked: "It is commonly accepted that the prerogative's deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise and is not statutorily bound to consult others." 1 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fifteenth Report 8 (2006). "In practice this means that the Prerogative is exercised by the Prime Minister." 2 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fifteenth Report 1 (2006). Here are the facts:

• "[T]he current deployment power" is "highly personalised" and "exercised by the Prime Minister alone -- without any formal requirement for scrutiny or discussion." 1 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution at 8.

• "When you look at the royal prerogative, it is not the prerogative of the Cabinet, it is a prerogative of the Prime Minister." 2 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution at 3.

• "[C]ommitment of our Armed Forces [is] solely on the exercise of the prerogative by the Prime Minister in whom it is now vested." Id. at 108.

The power to deploy the armed forces is vested in the Prime Minister both in theory and practice.

3. You're fooling no one by selectively quoting one of my sources. You omitted the part where it says: "questions of timing and secrecy meant that the Cabinet was being associated with decisions already effectively taken." The context makes clear that "some real meaning to the concept of collective responsibility" meant no more than "the Prime Minister [taking] care to keep the full Cabinet informed." Freedman does not say that the rest of the war cabinet are "war leader[s]" in their own right. That's just something you made up.

4. What Freedman does say is: "Thatcher dominated the War Cabinet." Lawrence Freedman, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Vol. II: War and Diplomacy 23 (2005). This is where the "prominence is relative" argument torpedoes your attempt to shoehorn the cabinet where it doesn't belong. The template guidelines specify "an upper limit of about seven" per column, which means that only the most notable merit inclusion. Adding the entire cabinet would exceed that limit. Your attempts to circumvent the template parameters look increasingly untenable. Also incoherent is your preposterous digression about my motives (you need to stop with the personal attacks). We now have four separate and independent reasons for excluding them, backed by meticulous support (nearly 20 reliable sources), whereas you have none. Your failure to adduce any evidence for their inclusion makes the case for their exclusion. 220.255.1.82 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They should be excluded as they are not notable leaders, military or political all were under Thatcher. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense it was collective decision making, I still don't see a coherent argument for excluding the War Cabinet. So far, what is the argument, you can sum it up as "they're not notable, 'cos we say so." Doesn't cut the mustard on wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They are not political leaders, all members of the Tory party had Thatcher as their leader. Collective descussions but the final decision was Thatchers, it was her government to promote or sack as she thought fit. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so let me get this straight. You assert that the Secretary of State for Defence has no leadership role? Thats really your argument. Wow. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough

In the long dull discussion above, I see 7 editors supporting the inclusion of Thatcher (versus 1 indifferent and 2 against). Following the suggestion that the entire war cabinet be included as an (unnecessary) compromise, 4 editors have said this would be a bad idea, for various logical and referenced reasons which have been presented numerous times above. At present, only 1 supports the idea, which is also against the consensus established by other articles and the infobox page. I’m afraid the onus is on you Wee Curry Monster to provide better support for your stance, as presently you haven’t provided anything other than opinion (and one rather vague ref) and made various claims that we haven’t addressed your suggestion (we all have, at length).

You say that a consensus hasn’t been reached, despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary. You also claim that all there is here is a ‘majority’ that can tag team the article to enforce our viewpoint. You might like to read Wikipedia:Tag_team#False_accusations_of_tag-teaming and bear in mind that the only editor who will be reverting the changes is likely to be you. This isn’t tag teaming.

You say that the entire war cabinet is “not notable ‘cos we say so” doesn’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia. Sadly neither does “they are notable ‘cos Wee Curry Monster says so”. Please supply good quality references and indicate any form of consensus of opinion on this matter or I shall be removing them. Editors above have already supplied references and demonstrated logical reasons for not including the full war cabinet. The consensus demonstrated by other articles is also quite clear.

I’ve also raised this issue at the Milhist talk page as I’m quite frankly bored of it now and would like to get down to actually doing this article some good. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We are supposed to be describing how the Falklands War was led by political leaders. OK fair enough, I note that although I felt that it should have been restricted to military leaders I was prepared to compromise and include political leaders. Politically the war was led by the War Cabinet in the UK, it was not led personally by Margaret Thatcher, she chaired a War Cabinet practising collective responsibility. To simply put in Margaret Thatcher alone carries with it the implication of a presidential like role that doesn't reflect the way the war was led. I make this point and its simply dismissed.

You suggest sources have been provided to establish that Thatcher was a noted war leader. No, what we have seen is a lot of quotes presenting the opinions of individual authors. In most cases from flattering biographies written by Thatcher fanbois. Not necessarily an objective source for such an opinion. I too include the opinion of the noted historian Sir Freedman, who wrote the official history of the Falklands War who emphasises the role of the War Cabinet in practising collective responsibility. I personally place greater emphasis on his opinion as he is very much noted for his objectivity.

How could we include this information. We could wiklink to the War Cabinet article, with a note it was chaired by Margaret Thatcher. We could list the War Cabinet. We could do a lot of things. What I've suggested is a quite reasonable point.

I say this as all members of the War Cabinet were noted politicians and leaders in their own right. All have their own wikipedia article conforming to WP:GNG, so their notability is well established. This is my argument, not as you mischaracterise because "I says so". Your response is that Thatcher is the only notable leader and its basically 'cos you say so. You and others have not demonstrated a logical reason for not including the War Cabinet. In fact, I consider it a major omission from the article.

I have indicated a willingness to compromise and to discuss how what I proposed might be implemented. I have waited patiently for a response to what I proposed and all I have basically got in response is a slagging off. Frankly if you're bored, tough, I have made a reasonable point and have tried earnestly to engage in discussion. You haven't reciprocated, you dismissed it out of hand. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, my point is that they are not notable enough to be included in a summary infobox. You have mischaracterised everyone else's input, claiming that all you've said has been 'dismissed out of hand'. The long winded discussion above is proof that hasn't happened. You are required to provide evidence and consensus for your stance. You still haven't. Nor have you engaged in any discussion about how it might be implemented until now. I'm more than happy for a section on the war cabinet to be in the article, but not in the infobox. Nor is anyone else in this discussion. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all of the War Cabinet from the infobox based on precedent as demonstrated in the Vietnam War infobox and others. The War Cabinet lacks the authority to declare war, as does the Monarch, although a smart PM canvasses the members of the putative War Cabinet before declaring war. The PM alone, as head of government, is worthy of inclusion. Furthermore, I thought it improper to ignore the Argentine equivalent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good example and it precisely proves my point, a Presidential style of Government rather than the collective responsibility of a War Cabinet as practised in the UK. A precadent like the Vietnam War, yes of course, one size fits all. All democracies are the same, all are governed in the same way. The PM alone, 'cos I say so, no reason, rhyme or logic and just ignore the opinion of one of the most noted historians who has documented the Falklands War

Once again we see someone steaming in, not listening and pushing their weight around. What you described as a long winded discussion is frankly a dialogue of the deaf, where you simply refused to listen. I have tried to discuss this and here we go again, you drag your mates in to impose what you want. This is bollocks, this isn't about improving the article its simply bullying. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And its nice to observe the complete lack of expertise or knowledge of the conflict. [12] Also because no equivalent for the Argentines, what the hell do you think the military junta of Galtieri, Dozo and Anaya was? Unbelievable. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I was thinking that the Argentines were part of the military chain of command, but that doesn't negate my fundamental point, which you ignored with a BS reference to a Presidential style of gov't, that only the head of gov't is worthy of inclusion in the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What fundamental point? The Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was and remains Her Majesty the Queen Elizabth II not Margaret Hilda Thatcher. Thatcher was not and never could be Head of State. Again you make a point based upon your ignorance and lack of knowledge, whilst dismissing the argument of someone who does actually know what they're talking about as, and I quote, "BS". I have also noted the opinion of the noted historian, my edit was sourced, yours isn't. I am therefore reverting you with a request you discuss your removal of sourced content. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Head of state, where did that come from? As you can easily see above, I said head of government. More tendentious and willful misunderstandings. I will revert you because your sourced statement doesn't address the issue that most of us believe that the head of gov't, only, should be in the infobox. Move your statement to the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Head of state came from your edit [13] and I quote "RM all but heads of state and military commander". As I point out above, Margaret Thatcher was not the Head of State. Now, i have quoted a noted historian who specifically notes collective not individual leadership and you're reverting sourced content, with the reasoning that you believe it should be different. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done a minor WP:BOLD edit to simply wikilink to the War Cabinet article, I'm about to add a reference to Freedman. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to recognise that the majority of opinions are that a single political figurehead is an appropriate level of inclusion in the article.

It strikes me that this is now becoming sufficiently tendentious that we might be getting beyond the discussion stage of resolving this dispute.

ALR (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I did think of the mediation cabal, as there does seem to be a dialogue of the deaf. However, this seems to be a misunderstanding by largely American editors ignorant of the way Government functions in the UK, based on their experience of presidential style Government. I would ask you to note my last edit noted the War Cabinet was led by Margaret Thatcher and didn't include the full War Cabinet. I've never demanded we included everyone, I do think we should note the war was led by committee though. It was, to give credit solely to Margaret Thatcher is misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the American editors writing here are fully cognizant about the significant differences between a parliamentary system and a presidential system, but we wish to confine mention the war's leadership to a single politician, not the junta or the war cabinet. You've deliberately missed my point about including only heads of gov't and went off a tangent about heads of state. Which you used to spray insults at me. We understand that both played a part in running the war, but we feel that that should be confined to the main body, not the infobox which is a concise summary of the war. Nobody disputes that the war cabinet had a part to play in running the war, but I, and a bunch of others, feel that is best discussed in the main body. Fine, you disagree, but there's no cause to insult people who disagree with you, nor for ascribing such disagreements to "ignorance and lack of knowledge".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Spray insults, rather like dismissing someone's comment as Bullshit, is that intended to promote collegial discussion? Especially when you have demonstrated an ignorance of the British Government by describing the Prime Minister as Head of State as you did here. If i describe your comments as ignorant, it is because you have demonstrated ignorance. I did not go off on a tangent I responded to your comment and I quote again "RM all but heads of state and military commander". I do disagree but the difference is I have sourced my edit and yours is just personal preference. You dress it up as me against the rest but that isn't the case. Provide a reasonable policy based reason for removing sourced content, or in 24 hrs I will restore sourced content again. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That diff says no such thing as you well know, my edit summary was in error, as I've been discussing heads of gov't here all along. The argument here is what leaders should belong in the infobox, not anything else as you maintain. So your sourced content, which no one disputes, BTW, was deleted as contrary to established precedent and practice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Now its my turn to cry bullshit, the diff says precisely that. If a genuine error on your part, you would have acknowledged my response as reasonable in the circumstances. Trying to shift the blame for your mistake onto others is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Precedent and practise? Pray tell where this "precedent and practise" is established that we ignore how a war was lead to promote an edit that misleads. You've suggested an American example, well the UK is not yet the 51st state so how does that establish precedent and practise for a British War unless you're practising cultural imperialism? And it is misleading to describe Thatcher as a military commander, when decision making was done collectively as the War Cabinet not individually. Or is this just another argument to be dissed as BS, which reminds me when did the cry of BS become a policy based argument? On a related matter when did "precedent and practise " trump core policies of WP:RS and WP:V? This is not a valid reason for deleting content that is sourced, relevant and verified. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm - deja vu. Again, your suggestion that this is how the UK's system of government is displayed in war infoboxes has a greater affect than just this article and as such should be discussed at a wider platform - the milhist or infobox talk pages. And for the record, no I don't believe that the world of infoboxes will come crashing down because of how the guideline is applied here (those were your words not mine). But I do believe that Wikipedia has a fairly common sense process for dealing with style issues on several articles, and your way isn't it. You're adapting your argument again to say that because you have a source, it's justified. I think that what most editors who have commented here feel is that just because a historian says that the war cabinet was important, we shouldn't modify the way in which infoboxes are used in war articles. Besides which, as the IP editor pointed out, the source you're using is hardly fully behind your stance (Thatcher dominated the war cabinet). Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Deja vu? Patronising is really the best way to go, add a pinch of sarcasm and its a brilliant way to convince editors round to your argument. Does it affect more than this article, not really, the Falklands War was fairly unique in a number of respects; including the way it was led. But hey it seems far more important to some people to shoehorn it into an inappropriate guideline than discuss how to represent it in the infobox in a reasonable manner.

No I'm not adapting my argument, I pointed out what Freedman said before Christmas. But hey, once again if you're reduced to misrepresenting the argument then your argument is the one that is inconsistent and continuously changing. At one point you're lauding an IP editor for quoting a series of opinions by various authors about Thatcher but you're ignoring what a noted historian has to say. And Freedman doesn't contradict what I say, he points out that Thatcher consulted and did not ignore opposing opinion.

At this point, what you and your friends are bullying out of the infobox is the fact that Thatcher chaired the War Cabinet. This is how the war was led, she did not personally command the conflict. Now you're reduced to edit warring to remove sourced content, pontificating about style and other none policy based argument like they trump verifiability and reliable sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Patronising is really the best way to go, add a pinch of sarcasm and its a brilliant way to convince editors round to your argument." That really does sum up your style. Goodnight. Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I love the debating style, all you have to do is invoke Godwins Law and you have the complete set. The brilliant thing is you never have to compose a rational, logical counter argument. Blame everyone but yourself. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's disappointing when normally constructive editors descend into bickering. I would ask you all to step away for a day to cool off and think about a more constructive way of communicating. (Hohum ^@) 13:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I did step away for 24 hrs, I previously waited over 2 weeks for a response. I've been prepared to compromise, I have done so, I have offered alternatives. Instead of actually communicating, all I get is slagged off for no good reason. This is bullying and it needs to stop. I am happy to discuss things but I'll defend myself when it is made personal instead of focusing on content. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cluttering?

Two edits in question

A) Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
B) War Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

B) is being reverted despite

1. Adding more relevant information as to how the war was lead on the British side
2. It is sourced per WP:RS and WP:V

A) is misleading. It implies Thatcher was in sole command, she wasn't. She chaired the War Cabinet. There was the practise of collective responsibility.

The reasons stated for A) over B) change all the time.

1. There isn't a concensus for it - not an excuse to remove sourced based content for content that is not. Consensus can't decide the earth is flat or the moon made of green cheese.
2. The claim that other members of the War Cabinet weren't notable - utter nonsense as all have their own article per WP:GNG and all had a notable role in leading the war.
3. Now its "cluttering the infobox". Compare the two above it is clearly not cluttering anything. The difference is minimal.

Please give me a damn good reason for preferring the misleading edit over the more informative one. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/09 January 2012/Falklands War. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. That MedCab doesn't even include all the editors involved in the discussion. Let me see if I get you right:

• You're saying that sourced material can't be rejected on any grounds;
• You're saying that more info is the way to go, no matter what, even if the result is ugly like this;
• You're saying that 6 or 7 editors vs 1 or 2 editors isn't enough to consider it a fair consensus.

Is that right? Because that's what needs to be true in order for your idea to be forcibly accepted. --Langus (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No Langus, I am not saying any of that, I'm asking for a reasonable logical reason. When did "ugly" become a policy based objection? Yet again focusing on the editor not the content.

I didn't include you as you didn't take part in the dicussion and your revert seemed to be another example of you following me around reverting my edits. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The only reasonable logical solution that makes any sense is point B (War Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher). Point B is both sourced per WP RS and WP V. So it's common sense that B is the solution. My biggest problem with Point A is that its misleading to the readers because Thatcher did not work alone. She never did, so why mislead the readers? BTW how is adding more accurate info to the article called cluttering? That's just weird. @Langus, consensus isn't made by numbers or by friends. @WeeCurryMonster, I'm very disappointed to see you being bullied by the same editors who bullied me in 2010. It got so bad I was forced to drop all WW2 articles. I was hoping that those editors from the Military project had changed from the 2010 episode. I guess not. Caden ^cool 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)