Talk:Skirmish at Top Malo House

message: Is it really necessary to litter this article with  after nearly every sentence? Stephenjh 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: The composition of the Argentinian party was 12 men, according to one of the sources cited (Losito). So is hard to understand why the infobox adds 6 other men to the Argentinian party. It's also absurd to suppose that two published and reliable sources like Ruiz Moreno and Losito (the latter himself a protagonist of the battle) only identify two fatalities. I guess they have no interest in concealing three deaths, specially Losito, since the fallen were his colleagues and very close to him, and 24 years have passed between his book and the war. Had the Argentine's roll of honor been understated, it would be to taunt the families of the missing dead.
DagosNavy 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually rather than despising the Argentine version, I'd done some research and found Argentine material that also corroborated it.  One is in the version I self-reverted.  The reason for the self-revert was when I checked the official British history  it corroborates your version.  The edit was based upon the sources quoted, they appear to be wrong, but then if you look on the web most appear to be so - including Argentine sites.  It was an edit made in good faith and you really should have assumed so.  Justin talk 23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK. Best regards.
DagosNavy 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: By despising the Argentine version, the article contradicts itself

message: A number of accounts have been written of the battle and many, both Argentine and British, erroneously put the number of Argentine dead at five.
There is an assumption that this is the correct version and all the rest are wrong. This is a point of view, but if it is to be stated then it should not be done in the passive narrative voice of the article but attributed to the most reliable source available. Eg "The Argentinian/British regimental history" states that Argentinian lost two KIA. Some other accosts ...".
For the moment I am removing the word "erroneously" as it carries a bias and as such breaks WP:NPOV -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not, the British and Argentine accounts now tally, as reported in the Official History, one account that was incorrect was widely reported, it has been repeatedly corrected.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See what I have written in the article. If you know which report was in "error" then give the name of the report and add that the later official histories state that ... Readers can then draw their own conclusions, we do not have to say which is an error unless there is a source that explicitly says that one is in error. In cases like this it is usually better to place source comparisons and differences in footnotes, unless the differences have a notable POV difference which needs to be present in the text of the article, and this one does not. -- PBS (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nothing to do with POV issues, that is frankly a red herring, the reports are in error, in some cases only corrected when the official histories were written.  We should not knowingly repeat information we know to be erroneous. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  erroneously 

message: The sentence "14 ROA members..." is highly dubious as those teams havent such number of members, in fact many of their officers were pucara pilots which no more airplanes to fly. The number of POW, if true, might include some regular army troops on it. --Jor70 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't what the sources say, as I understand it was a patrol in strength so the numbers seem about right to me.  Justin talk 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ROA

message: I think the word "battle" is something of an overstatement. I'll suggest that the article's name should be changed to "Skirmish at Top Malo House" cf. Skirmish at Many Branch Point. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skirmish, not "battle" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Skirmish at Top Malo House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Mountain-Arctic-Warfare-Cadre.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think it is very clear this is a small engagement that was won by Argentine forces.Don Brunett (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, why?  The Argentine forces were all killed, wounded or captured.  Aside from anything else common practise on wikipedia is to not use such terms on small engagements.    WCMemail 21:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi folks. The article's name reads "skirmish". The consequences of such a small actions didn't change or influence the final outcome of the war, so there is consensus in these cases to leave the "result" entry blank, since the use of this parameter is optional (you can use a "see aftermath section" with a link if you want). On the other hand, it's obvious that the Royal Marines prevailed during the engagement, as you can see in the aforementioned "aftermath" section.--Darius (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is disagreement on whether using "skirmish" is wrong, and no consensus seems likely to come out of it. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Skirmish at Top Malo House →  – A skirmish is defined as an accidental encounter. This was not the case; it was deliberately planned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes. I only saw it afterwards. A skirmish is defined as an accidental encounter. This was not the case; it was deliberately planned. I propose that the title be changed to "Action at Top Talo House". I've looked at various sources and descriptions are "Raid on Top Talo House", "Battle of Top Talo House" and "Firefight at Top Talo House"; Spanish sources use "combate de Top Malo House". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The original title was Battle at Top Malo House, prompted by Nik Van der Bijls's book Nine Battles to Stanley, however whilst it may have made for a snappy book title it didn't reflect the action, which was a clash of two small units.  I am opposed to going back to Battle but am OK with your alternative suggestions. WCMemail 08:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the word may sometimes be used that way, it is also often used just to refer to any conflict that is brief and relatively small/minor. Some dictionaries that do not even mention the idea of a lack of planning include Merriam-Webster, Collins, American Heritage and Random House (the last two are according to The Free Dictionary). The Cambridge definition that you cited says "usually" not planned, which does not rule out the possibility of using the word for a planned encounter. The Skirmish article on Wikipedia just says a skirmish is "A battle with only light, relatively indecisive combat", without saying planning cannot be involved. I'm not saying the title should necessarily use the word, but I'm convinced the word can apply. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 June 2022 

message: The article originally gave the size of the Argentine patrol as twelve. The Argentine sources list thirteen names. That is easy to explain; the twelve does not include the commander. Early British sources give five dead, seven wounded and five prisoners. Freedman (2005) says 2 dead, seven wounded and five prisoners, so we are going with that. But Freedman's numbers come to fourteen, not thirteen. Miscounting the dead is easy, especially when people are blown to bits, but prisoners are counted. Boswell (2021) says that the Argentine force also included two blowpipe operators and two medics, who are not counted in Argentine sources since they were not members of 602 Commande Company. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've seen the numbers varying quite a lot.  I must admit I relied on Freedman as the definitive source, with this being the Official History.  WCMemail 07:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers still don't add up