Talk:Battle of Goose Green

message: The article is written with a slight bias toward the UK side. laddiebuck 01:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest there is a POV problem in that the article tends towards hagiography in its treatment of H Jones.  I will put a ref to "Not Mentioned in Dispatches" which "pretty much argues that the British were only victorious at Goose Green in 1982 because Colonel Jones managed to get himself killed"(!) [] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely a British POV - and also it reads too much like it's been written by British military men, together with military jargon and slang. The jury's still out on Jones - was he stupid and foolhardy, or was he setting a brave example to his men? --MacRusgail 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Inspired by their commanding officer's sacrifice" This is a tired old canard from 1982 propaganda. There is no evidence that Jones' death had this result. His previous exhortations to A Company may have helped shake them out of the inertia created by the weight of fire coming from the Argentine positions on Darwin Hill. The immediate effect of Jones intervention, however, was the death of two senior officers and a section leader. Interviews of 2 Para survivors indicate (a) a slight depression that descend on those who first heard the news that the CO was a casualty, and  (b) resistance to the idea that Jones' death was seen as a 'sacrifice' or as inspirational. True, he had trained a battalion that proved able to persist in the face of difficult circumstances and win, but his plan of attack was over-complicated and his style of command inflexible. Arguably, the most fortunate of effect of Jones' death was to remove him from the picture and allow his 2 i/c Major Keeble to collaborate with the company commanders and achieve a more flexible and realistic- if slighty chaotic- resumption of the advance to take Goose Green.JF42 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to correct this - and working through section by section.  Please comment / edit where necessary!  Farawayman (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: "as it was a significant Argentinian position and close to the beachhead at San Carlos, it could not be ignored."
I suggest that this is probably the case, in my view, but that it is arguable. There are those who think it was a costly worthless battle, and that they could have taken Stanley without it. Another school of thought says that it was a propaganda victory, not necessarily of much strategic value, but a big blow to Argentine morale, since it was one of the largest massings of Argentines outside Stanley, together with the base on Pebble Island. 
There is an argument to say that they should have invaded West Falkland, but this never came about - like Goose Green, there are strategic arguments for a mass scale invasion of the second biggest island, but it would have been extremely costly. --MacRusgail 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: There is not mention about how B Coy RI 12 arrived late to the battle, via every helo available (including 2 FAA chinooks) on may 28 night . --Jor70 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added this Company to the ORBAT  Farawayman (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentine orbat 

message: Infobox:
*Strength:
**790 army, 202 airforce personnel (992 men)
*Casualties and losses:
**47 killed, 145 wounded, 961 captured (1008 men if the wounded were POW too, 1153 men if they weren't)
*The strength number should be higher than or equal to the casualties number. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers in the infobox doesn't match. 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gada82-GooseGreen.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipaedia, so please excuse if this seems a bit disjointed.
At the beginning..., there is mention that the original military planning was to bypass Goose Green, because as an isolated outpost it had no strategic significance. And it only became a target for assault when political considerations became involved.
Later in the part of the entry entitled "BBC Incident" there is mention that the BBC announced on radio that Goose Green was about to be attacked. 
The combination of the 2 items above rather tend towards the conclusion that it was political interests which leaked the plans to the BBC. And that ultimately it was a sacrifice of lives for the good of politicians and/or purely propagandist purposes. 
There would appear to be merit in the creation of a new section which examines this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myfriendogri (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Myfriendogri, thank you for your comments. To address your point, the attack on Goose Green was not leaked to the BBC as you put it, rather the BBC had reporters on the ground in with the troops who reported back regarding the attack. Consequently unless you have a source showing it was leaked then it is merely supposition and can't be included. For the record, the Paras were furious with the BBC for the advanced warning they gave the Argentines, and you don't want to be near a furious Para who is about to go into battle. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And apart from anything else, that is WP:OR and not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia.  Wikipedia does not allow original research but reflects other sources.  BTW the MoD briefed the BBC on the assault on Goose Green, the BBC reported it faithfully, it was the MoD's cock up not the BBC's.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Julian Thompson makes this clear in 'No Picnic', and Sandy Woodward says more or less the same thing. jamesgibbon 18:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Necessity or A Waste of Lives  

message: There is a statement in the article that reads:  Throughout 27 May, Royal Air Force Harriers were active over Goose Green. One of them, responding to a call for help from 2 Para, was lost to 35mm fire while attacking Darwin Ridge.[24][25][26] Although it has three citations, is this date correct?  Surely they were over the battlefield on the 28th May (i.e. the day of the attack).  
Views?  Farawayman (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air support 

message: I have been doing quite a lot of editing on this page.  I have tried to address comments listed here on the talk page and also been trying to use more applicable and current sources (as opposed to primary sources or those published in the months after the battle before there had been time to do some thinking and analysis and to permit debate).  I have not touched the section titled "Battle" - thats a job for a rainy day.  Any volunteers to assist?  Farawayman (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: I recommend that we remove all references to individuals, save for commanders of Companies and higher.  In my opinion, a page dedicated to the course and outcome of a battle is not improved by continued references to individuals, except if they played a notable leadership role, or if their individual actions significantly altered the outcome of the battle.  Any objections?  Farawayman (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to individuals

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Goose Green. 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.sama82.org.uk/news/june13a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407054559/http://www.cescem.org.ar:80/informacion/noticias/pag09_057.html to http://www.cescem.org.ar/informacion/noticias/pag09_057.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've just reverted a series of changes added to the article.  The main reason, as I gave in my edit summary, was wikifiddling.  The editor responsible has inflated British casualties through original research by adding in unrelated casualties, such as a Gurkha who was killed in EOD clearance and a Sea Harrier pilot shot down in early May.  The second reason was it added a number of extraneous and unnecessary detail eg the names of soldiers involved in minor actions and apparently the proud warrior status of some indigenous peoples. WCMemail 08:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You added that material after I posted to talk, so your complaint is fatuous.  I clearly make the distinction that comment is related to your inflation of British casualties.  And again the level of detail you're adding isn't appropriate to an article of this size but the 2016 mtg is about the only thing you've added that could arguably belong in the article.  See above, reference to individuals isn't appropriate except in limited circumstance.  Wikipedia doesn't exist to right WP:GREATWRONGS, if that is what you're here for, you will have a short and unhappy stay. WCMemail 10:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifiddling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Goose Green. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029202548/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/David/Goosegreen.htm to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/David/Goosegreen.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Although the British attackers did not succeed in capturing Goose Green, they sought to prevent civilian casualties and therefore did use to its full extent the fire support (artillery and close air support) at their disposal.
:Are you sure it wasn't 'did not use'? Valetude (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoroughly odd sentence, the British definitely captured Goose Green.  I've removed it. WCMemail 20:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing word? 

message: ::I was working on this when you moved it to TALK, I think this version is more correct:
Below data is from Adkin, Goose Green: a Battle to be fought to be won unless specifically indicated by additional citations.
Numbers in parenthesis indicate the approximate strength of that entity on 28th May 1982.
Formation                                                            	Unit / Company / Squadron                                                                                                       	Platoon / Troop
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	Army                                                                                                                            	GAA 4: Lt Chanampa. (half battery) 4x 105mm Pack Howitzer [45]
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	Army                                                                                                                            	GADA 601 Bty: Sub-Lt. Braghini. Skyguard radar and 2x 35mm Oerlikon
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	A Company 12IR 1st Lt. Antonio Manresa                                                                                          	1 Platoon
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	A Company 12IR 1st Lt. Antonio Manresa                                                                                          	2 Platoon:
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	A Company 12IR 1st Lt. Antonio Manresa                                                                                          	3 Platoon 2Lt. Vasquez(arrived as reinforcements from Peurto Argentino under Lt. Esteban at approx 11:00)
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	A Company 12IR 1st Lt. Antonio Manresa                                                                                          	Admin "scratch' Platoon: 2Lt. Peluto
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	A Company 12IR 1st Lt. Antonio Manresa                                                                                          	3 Platoon: 2Lt. Guillermo Aluga C Coy, 8IR (under A Coy command)
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	B Company 12IR (Combat Team Solari)(arrived from Mt. Kent as reinforcements under Capt. Eduardo Corsiglia at approx 16:00) [140]	4 Platoon
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	B Company 12IR (Combat Team Solari)(arrived from Mt. Kent as reinforcements under Capt. Eduardo Corsiglia at approx 16:00) [140]	5 Platoon
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	B Company 12IR (Combat Team Solari)(arrived from Mt. Kent as reinforcements under Capt. Eduardo Corsiglia at approx 16:00) [140]	6 Platoon
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	C Company 12IR 1st Lt. Ramón Fernández Duaso [180]                                                                              	7 Platoon
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	C Company 12IR 1st Lt. Ramón Fernández Duaso [180]                                                                              	8 Platoon
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	C Company 12IR 1st Lt. Ramón Fernández Duaso [180]                                                                              	9 Platoon
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	C Company 25IR (Group Gűemes)1st Lt Carlos Esteban [100]                                                                        	7 Platoon: Lt. Roberto Estévez
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	C Company 25IR (Group Gűemes)1st Lt Carlos Esteban [100]                                                                        	8 Platoon: 2Lt. G. Centurion
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	C Company 25IR (Group Gűemes)1st Lt Carlos Esteban [100]                                                                        	9 Platoon: 2Lt. Reyes (arrived from Fanning Head as reinforcements under Lt. Esteban at approx 11:00)
Task Force MercedesO.C. Lt-Col Ítalo Ángel Piaggi Inf. Regt. 12 [650]	Support Platoon Lt. Morales [30]                                                                                                	Support Platoon Lt. Morales [30]
Coast Guard Element [10]                                             	Coast Guard Element [10]                                                                                                        	Coast Guard Element [10]
Airforce Element: Condor air base O.C: Vice Commodore Pedrosa [250]  	AA Detachment [45]                                                                                                              	Elta radar and 6x twin-20mm Rheinmetall
Airforce Element: Condor air base O.C: Vice Commodore Pedrosa [250]  	Support: Lt Esteban [57]                                                                                                        	1x 120mm and 2x 81mm mortars1x HMG4x MG1x Pucara rocket pod converted for ground firing.
Farawayman (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 2

message: O.C: Vice Commodore Pedrosa was more senior than Lt Col Piaggi.  He was not a subordinate of Piaggi.  Resolved:  See V2
The mixing up of parts of 8IR, 12IR and 25IR is confusing. Resolved:  See V2
The "Fire Support Company" is nonsense and is not explicitly supported by Adkin p273.  The artillery support came from four organisations: Resolved:  See V2
*Army
**GAA 4 half battery, Lt Chanampa [45] 3 x 105mm howitzers. Moro says 4x 105mm (pg 257, do we use 3 or 4?
**GADA 601 battery, Sub-Lt Braghini [33] Skyguard radar and 2 x twin 35mm. 
*Air Force
**[45] Elta radar. 6 x twin 20mm.
**[57] Lt Esteban, 2 x 81mm mortars, 1 HMG, 4 MG, 1 Pucara rocket pod converted for ground firing.Hugh Bicheno Razor's Edge p162
By the way, it is Lt Esteban, not "Estoban" (Adkin spells the name wrongly) - see La Gaceta Malvinense - Año XI - No 40 - Marzo de 2012 Resolved:  See V2
-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Undid revision by Wee Curry Monster because Private Carter clearly states Corporal Sullivan didn't venture forward to parley with Argentine platoon commander like rest of paragraph would imply--Vanberkel (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't learned we are trying to write an encyclopedia here and insist on these large tracts of personal commentary that other editors are having to strip out and tidy up after you.  Please stop and I am asking you to self-revert. WCMemail 21:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: White flag incident