Talk:Falklands War

International support

Besides moral and verbal support, what did Canada or Australia do to help? I cannot see any reference in the Martin source and I cannot see the Middlebrook source. I think 'offering' to cancel the deal with 'Invincible' is hardly support, seeing as Fraser had no option, it was a fait accompli. And mentioning the Melbourne is going off track. It looks to me that a sub-section about the commonwealth has been created just for the sake of it and it is filled in, regarding Australia, with tangential fluff. I haven't removed it because there are sources attached, even though I think those sources do not support anything worth keeping. Comment here first is probably the best next step. If keeping the 'Invincible' at the last minute is to be mentioned, a sentence or two is all that is needed, in some other section I would think. Thoughts? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Diplomacy and the 1982 Falklands War explains why Canada sat on the fence.

I added the segment about Australia. I think it was worth mentioning that withdrawing from the Invincible contract had a real cost to Australia in terms of her own defence, and they could have demanded financial compensation or pressed on with the purchase post-war. Anyhow, the entry only consists of two brief sentences, so that seems to comply with your premise that "a sentence or two is all that is needed".

You may be right about the "Commowealth" heading, especially as some other Commonwealth countries are listed further down. However, it can be argued that New Zealand's assistance was in the context of their Commowealth relationship with the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I assume then you agree to remove the 'Commonwealth' section and reference to Canada. NZ lent a warship which is direct assistance. I don't know the terms of the Invincible deal but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a clause in it that allowed the UK to use the ship at the last minute if urgently needed. In any case, I think saying Australia didn't make a fuss and that is its assistance is stretching things a bit far. I assume that after the war the Invincible was still available but Australia chose not to go ahead with the deal. I think this section should be for very clear direct assistance such as a base or intelligence, otherwise we will end up with a long list of tenuous connections. Why not add Brazil who allowed a Vulcan to land at its airport, or every EEC country that voted to condemn the invasion, or China and the USSR for not blocking the UN resolution? By having a sentence on the Invinsible I meant somewhere else in the article, not in the section about help given by a list of countries, because as just mentioned, I don't think it was really 'help provided'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Too late, Brazil already has a subsection including the Vulcan incident. Perhaps we should wait for other editors to comment. Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alansplodge Okay, I hadn't looked at this article fully for a while so can now see what has happened, and Australia is just part of a larger group. IMO, that list is a good example of the sort of list making that a malaise affecting many wiki-editors. Lists in themselves are fine, and I dabble with them often, but they allow editors to play around by creating things with little inherent value. I can see most on this list here are sourced but that doesn't make them worth adding to the list. This article is about the war, not, for example, the politics of the Northern Ireland problem, as per Ireland on the list. We can go on for ever finding sources with a vague reference to a country and the Falklands War. IMO the list should be restricted to countries that were involved to a significant degree, such as supplying bases. There is also the issue of balance in the article. This list is disproportionately large, distracting from the article's main topic. I agree, other editors' opinion should be sort. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree it could be slimmed down, but by how much? Pinging User:Gog the Mild, User:Wee Curry Monster, User:Necessary Evil, User:Hohum, User:Jor70 and any other editors with a view. Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. Someone values my opinion?! I have run a lot of battles, campaigns and wars through FAC and think I have only once gone much over 5,000 words. I should think one could summarise the Falklands War in 7,000-9,000 words with ease given the number of existing sub-articles. Having just skimmed it, I suggest aiming for the lower end of that. Re "Foreign involvement", I would cut it to a brief paragraph on the US and four sentences on the rest, two per side; virtually everything I read was waffle. If someone feels it is worth saving, put it in a separate article and Wikilink to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Verification request

@user:NoonIcarus About your cn request today, can you please specific what precisely needs referencing? The previous uncited sentence contains more than one 'fact' that are not directly connected. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I found a cite that verified the whole sentence. Can I suggest WP:SOFIXIT for a spot of bed time reading. Drive by tagging is a bit of a bete noir of mine, I find it irritating that people think this is useful. WCM_email 09:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I really didn't want this to be a nuisance. It is an habit that I have with articles that I'm not too familiar or active in, just my previous edit was in anti-flash gear [1]. I echo Roger's thanks in this regard. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably unimportant, but "Guerra de *las* Malvinas"?

I am 32 years old, from Buenos Aires, and I'm yet to hear or read a native Spanish speaker include the plural feminine article in the name of this armed conflict.

Looks to me as a bona fide mistake from someone who speaks Spanish as a second language, or it may just be a calc from their mother tongue.

Either way, somehow the offending article seems to have propagated even to the Spanish wiki.

Did anybody else think the inclusion of the article sounds rather awkward in Spanish? Cheers. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What is it called in Argentina? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Everyone here says "Guerra de Malvinas", but I also believe that's the case for every Spanish speaker.

You would say "Las Malvinas" and "Las Islas Malvinas", but "Guerra de Malvinas" without the article. Articles are confusing, I know, but including it in this case is something I'd expect maybe from a Ukrainian (as they omit many that are required and insert some where they don't belong), but never from a native speaker. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

And it's not just a matter every-day speech. Look at this, verbatim within an article of legislation, straight from the official archive:

https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/50000-54999/50278/norma.htm 190.247.206.108 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia uses [2] Guerra de las Malvinas, the Spanish translation was provided by our Argentine colleagues rather than it being a mistake by an English speaker. Because of silly edit wars we've had in the past I'd advise on holding off on any changes since the language guideline in MOS specifies current text, so a wider change in policy is required. @Cambalachero:, @Kahastok: I've pinged other editors as I'm currently taking a wikibreak due to family problems. You might get me via email and I will try to look in occasionally. WCM_email 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

In the original message I mentioned the awkwardness somehow propagated to the Spanish wiki. Also, the Spanish wiki suffers from a lack of adherence to rules and conventions of orthography and punctuation, and is gravely plagued by calcs and poor translations of the better produced English articles. In fact, you just have to take a look at the Spanish talk page on the war and you would see how much was borrowed from the English one to replace entire sections that were brief, biased by the influence of irredentist activists and had an absolute lack of eloquence. I’ll make the point to have it fixed there as well.

I hope I explained myself better this time. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I also think silly edit wars shouldn’t stop us from having correct articles. I am ignorant, but I find it hard to believe someone will start a foolish edit war on account of replacing a weird calc with the proper expression that represents how all Spanish speakers (jurists included) actually talk. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

All interesting. I recall the debate about an indefinite article used by JFK, wrongly or rightly.[3] Also of interest, if you are correct, is how a simple error of fact, that at first sight looks plausible, can spread like wildfire and become ingrained into people's minds without question and is hard to change. Besides getting the opinion of native speakers I suppose we should get two or three examples from reliable secondary sources, which is the ultimate guide, not what Spanish speakers actually say. You have provided one source already, thanks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn’t my intention to have my suggestion be accepted at face value. I saw this in your article and then I was surprised and definitely confused (made me question my sanity for an instant) when I found it was the same in Spanish, with also every Romance language wikis having a literal word by word translation (although in most cases the article is included in a contraction with the preposition - delle, das, etc). I wanted to make sure I’m not the only one that finds that phrase odd. Also, first ever attempt to change the wiki; so sorry.

I’ll get a couple sources more and get back to you later. Thanks for your attention. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was also wondering what’s the point in providing an awkward translation to the language of the other side if it doesn’t match the actual vernacular expression? Even if it was the case that in Spain it sounded natural, it’s off and better left out. Argentines of every walk of life absolutely leave the definite article out, I just need to gather sources or get the attention of my countrymen.

But it is exactly like you said. How did such a simple error to catch get so far?

My money is on hypercorrection by contagion from Romance languages that can contract the feminine article (maybe? - Spanish only contracts the masculine art.)

Hopefully someone much wiser can shed some light. Thanks again. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

State-owned research institution:

https://santafe.conicet.gov.ar/guerra-de-malvinas-39-anos/

Fact-checking publication:

https://chequeado.com/el-explicador/a-40-anos-de-la-guerra-de-malvinas-5-desinformaciones-que-circularon-durante-la-guerra/

Federal government website:

https://www.argentina.gob.ar/educacion/efemerides/2-abril-malvinas

British media group:

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-60297592 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this was the relevant BBC article:

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-61793378

Institute of aviation instruction:

http://www.eam.iua.edu.ar/eam/guerra-de-malvinas/

National institute of geography:

https://www.ign.gob.ar/content/40-a%C3%B1os-de-la-guerra-de-malvinas

A might not be gone fishing after all. 190.247.206.108 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I've made the change. If it's wrong it can always be changed back again. Kahastok talk 21:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox has only the UK and Argentina as belligerents. I suggest that the Falkland Islands are added under the UK, with Rex Hunt added as a leader under the Falkland Islands flag. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)