Talk:Falklands War/Archive 2

message: These two sections seem to largely cover the same ground and repeat each other - maybe they should be merged? quercus robur 08:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair enough to shorten the main article by simply linking to the new one, isn't it? I'll clean it out, feel free to revert if you don't think that's reasonable, but the information looks duplicated to me. --BadWolf42 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, I was tempted to do the same myself... quercus robur 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto. I'll merge the Argentinian bits in its separate section into it too. --BadWolf42 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a duplication, because I migrated the information via cut and paste when I created the daughter article. I've now summarized the section. -Fsotrain09 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this required in any way? Why shouldn't this be in the daughter article? If it should, why should it be duplicated? --BadWolf42 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The summary, you mean? See the content guideline on that. -Fsotrain09 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anything there requiring you to have a summary after a spin-off, but I shan't complain if it's wanted and someone's willing to keep them synchronised. --BadWolf42 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Cultural impacts' and 'artistic treatments' sections 

message: Have swapped over the content of the passage on 'cultural impacts' from the main Falklands War article with the main article on Cultural impact of the Falklands War, as the former seemed to be far more extensive and thorough. Copyediting of both articles is probably still needed though.. quercus robur 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair enough to shorten the main article by simply linking to the new one, isn't it? I'll clean it out, feel free to revert if you don't think that's reasonable, but the information looks duplicated to me. --BadWolf42 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, I was tempted to do the same myself... quercus robur 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto. I'll merge the Argentinian bits in its separate section into it too. --BadWolf42 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a duplication, because I migrated the information via cut and paste when I created the daughter article. I've now summarized the section. -Fsotrain09 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this required in any way? Why shouldn't this be in the daughter article? If it should, why should it be duplicated? --BadWolf42 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The summary, you mean? See the content guideline on that. -Fsotrain09 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anything there requiring you to have a summary after a spin-off, but I shan't complain if it's wanted and someone's willing to keep them synchronised. --BadWolf42 11:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: swapped articles

message: Prince Andrew "revealed in an apparently inadvertent admission shortly after the war that he also flew missions as an Exocet missile decoy."
I've heard this story repeated many times, and while I've found a few mentions of the 'fact', I've seen no actual quotes from him or the Royal Navy.  Mostly, it's word of mouth, message boards and the like, although the BBC has stated it as if it were fact.  For all the proof I've seen so far, it could well have been British tabloid hyperbole that has survived as a related meme.  I believe the whole use of helicopter towed Exocet decoys has never been elevated above rumour status anyway.
If anybody here has some authority on the subject, and of course some sources, then please comment/edit.  At the least, provide a link to a direct quote from the Prince or the Navy as to his involvement, to elevate it above urban legend and, more relevantly, to secure it's continued inclusion here.  ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 03:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe anyone claimed using helicopter-towed Exocet decoys, and whilst I've not heard or read a direct quote from him, the use of radar return enhancers does not seem generally disputed. I'll have a quick look through my material and see if I have anything better, but AFAICS, a cite from the BBC is still a cite and, on the face of it, a bloody good one, if anyone can pin down the reference. Does anyone dispute 820 squadron provided radar decoys? If not, then we can clear this up by despecifying the claim. --BadWolf42 22:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the citation from the BBC says: "Famously, he flew as a so-called Exocet decoy to protect warships from missile attack."  Famously, and yet the words were seemingly never recorded.  The word famously here seems to suggest we all should know, and if we don't know then we're the only one!  However, I'm not afraid to admit that I've never once seen a direct quote where he said he ran such missions, and that I've only ever seen reference to it as an established fact as time has moved on.  "As you will remember..." etc.  Where is the candid admission of inspiring Royal duty?  Did the lucky journos present at the gaffe just sit on their mealticket instead of publishing it?  Yeah, right.  For all the quotation we have he could well have just mentioned the alledged practice and made no claim to actually running such missions himself.  It seems very unusual to not be able to find verbatim 'foot-in-mouth disease' quotations from the Royals. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall it was on camera rather than to written journalists, but I too have been unable to find reference to it. I think the employment of of radar return enhancers (towed or otherwise) is not officially acknowledged (despite various companies selling them), so that would make sense. The Prince's own short biography steadfastly avoids mentioning it, despite listing a number of other tasks 820 carried out, therefore I think it probably is fair to remove the claim as unsubstantiated.--BadWolf42 12:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There used to be something called Chaff(H) or Chaff Helicopter.  Rather than being dispensed from the 3inch launcher onboard the chaff foil is unloaded out of a helicopter door.  It was used in the 80s and it may be that being referred to.  It does mean that the cab is in the air, in the vicinity of the threat weapon, but it's not the cab that is the decoy.  As I recall it was intended to be Chaff Charlie or Delta, so used early in an engagement.  I can't comment on its efficacy though.ALR 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was certainly used as a technique (along with ships firing off chaff rockets) on the way down to con the shadowing 707 into thinking that the battle group had the amphibious force with them. Sandy Woodward was consequently a little irritated when the BBC announced they weren't!--BadWolf42 11:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prince Andrew, Duke of York|Prince Andrew]] as [[Exocet]] decoy? 

message: I definitely think, as a third-party observer, that it is time to spin off some of the sections into daughter articles. The "cultural effects in the UK" section looks especially promising as a potential daughter article. Thoughts? -Fsotrain09 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've created Cultural impact of the Falklands War. Now those subsections need summarizing. -Fsotrain09 17:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size

message: User:Tashtastic is continuing to change uncoordinated to a bizzare and archaic spelling unco-ordinated (twice today as of Sunday 13 August 2006 1800GMT). Here are two (British) dictionary links that cite uncoordinated as correct and do not recognise his perculiar fetish of what is "proper English spelling".
Cambridge Online Dictionary showing coordinated
Same, not recognising archaic spelling
Oxford Concise showing coordinated
Oxford Concise not recognising co-ordinated
It seems he has history with poor spelling edits, and is clearly being bloodyminded. Recommended courses of action?
--BadWolf42 18:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're asking for recommended courses of action, my main recommendation would be not to resort to personal attacks as you did in your edit summary here. With the matter at hand, the Collins English Dictionary Complete & Unabridged lists only 'uncoordinated' with no alternative given. It does list both 'coordinate' and 'co-ordinate' but uses the former in all examples. 'Unco-ordinate' is just plain ugly so I'd be inclined to not use it even if dictionaries listed it. But they don't, so get rid of it. Martín (saying/doing) 18:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the extra datum. As for your main recommendation, whilst personal, it seems quite a fair given the inability to follow the cite links (or at least contest them). Twice. But point taken. --BadWolf42 18:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's still at it, offering proof by assertion here.--BadWolf42 11:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hate to see something so seemingly trivial go to arbitration or mediation. Have you tried to email or message the user in question? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 17:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's been overtaken by other proof by assertion mediations he's engaged in, so hopefully we're out of the line of fire. Cheers. --BadWolf42 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor spelling edit war by [[User:Tashtastic]] 

message: I've made some heavy edits today. To outline them in case anyone wishes to alter/contest them:
* I've exported all but one line from the Cultural Impacts section to the new article.
* I've pulled the Impact in Argentina section, hived off most of it to the Cultural impact of the Falklands War and put the remaining Junta collapse paragraph into the Analysis section, where there was an almost identical one.
* In that Analysis section I've moved the Political to the top as the Junta's collapse was probably the biggest impact of the war.
* In that Political analysis section, I've thrown out two paragraphs that seemed to be non-political, speculative and hand-waving, and also a bit about Warsaw Pact military planning, which may or may not be related, but surely wasn't political in its normal sense. I've also moved the collapse of the Junta ahead of the re-election of Thatcher, as it's rather more significant and has a markedly more demonstratable connection.
* The remembrance memorial in Buenos Aires photograph has been moved to Cultural impact of the Falklands War.
* Old discussions (no contributions for a couple of weeks, or with an obvious resolution) have been archived to Talk:Falklands War/Archive01.
I hope these aren't too contraversial, and I don't think any cited information has been discarded. Cheers. --BadWolf42 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edits 14 Aug 2006 

message: Its the fisrs time it has been reffered to as that. Its not such a good title. No battle was fought for Stanley because it was surrended. The battles previous to that are important and should not go under that header. Goose Green has its own section why not the others.
:I believe it was called:The Fall of Port Stanley in the 80's. Necessary Evil 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm confused.  There was hard fighting to deal with the forces, supplied and based upon Stanley, in the defences set in the hills - the best defensive positions - immediately surrounding Stanley.  That, to my mind, is correctly called "The Battle for Stanley".  Toby Douglass 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle for Stanley ?

message: In the beginning of the article:United Kingdom - 2 taken prisoner.
57 marines from Naval Party 8901 were prisoners of war after the British surrender April 2nd. Should they be included in United Kingdom......taken prisoner? Does anyone know how many members of the Island's Defence Force that were POWs? On the press photos from April 2nd, there was a man wearing a hunter's gear sitting among the marines. Necessary Evil 21:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading "74 days - An Islander's diary of the Falklands occupation" by John Smith, it seems clear (if not explicitly stated) that members of FIDF were not taken to Argentina along with members of NP 8901.  Instead they were returned to their homes. (p32 ff) Jim Whitaker 17:38, 29 December 2006 (GMT)
Please add to the article referencing your sources with a . Dont worry about making mistakes if you are new as I will fix them, SqueakBox 17:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands instead since I think the material to which the discussion section referred may have been moved there?  Thanks for the welcome - I think my edit may need help since I may not have worked out the  tags properly? I have added the book to the references since it seems to complement the others listed. --Jim Whitaker 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POW numbers 

message: Not sure where to put this.  I took an EMT class and one of the instructors said that a significant number of Argentine casualties were from trenchfoot, resulting in many amputations.  He said this was due to failures of command, with some troops not changing their socks for most of the duration of the conflict.  He had a disgusting slide show of the injuries so I think it is probably true, but I don't have any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.218.58 (talk • contribs) 
:As ever - we cannot include unreferenced information even if it is true - see WP:Verify. Megapixie 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Just someone who was under the impression we were here to build a free encyclopedia. Megapixie 07:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trenchfoot