Jump to content

Talk:Aftermath of the Falklands War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War crimes addition by IP

[edit]

This article is supposed to be dealing with the significant large-scale social and political changes that took place in Britain, in Argentina, in the Falklands and elsewhere as a result of the Falklands War. Allegations of war crimes are only relevant inasmuch as it can be demonstrate that they reflect such changes. The current proposed text would not do this even if it was neutrally written.

As it is, the text being edit-warred in is strongly biased, reflecting allegations made by one side only, and treating those allegations as proven when they are not. They are very inappropriate and should not remain in the article. Pfainuk talk 14:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Aftermath" is not limited to large-scale social and political changes. Rather, it refers generally to all significant consequences.
The text is not biased - it simply summarizes and cites news reports from established journalists such as the Daily Mail.
The allegations described do not affect one side only - they affect both sides. No Quarter on the British side, Perfidy on the Argentine side.
The allegations are not treated as proven. The text explicitly states that they are accounts in books written by former British soldiers, and that the 1994 UK government inquiry failed to find sufficient evidence to sustain prosecution. 66.176.189.230 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have tried to explain to you, anecdotal evidence from which you draw your own conclusions is WP:OR and not suitable content. In addition, repeating unfounded allegations is a WP:BLP violation as individuals are indentified relatively easily and wikipedia had strict policies to avoid slandering individuals. You just stomped over all of that. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's also POV, and there are relevance issues. I note that you (the IP) refer to "significant consequences" of the war. Somebody writing a book is not a significant consequence of the Falklands War. Unsubstantiated allegations of war crimes are not significant consequences of the Falklands War. Even if war crimes can be substantiated and neutrally reported, then those crimes are not significant consequences of the Falklands War (as they would have been committed during, not after, the war). These allegations - even they were reported entirely in line with NOR and NPOV (and they weren't) - are not relevant to this article. Pfainuk talk 21:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not drawing my own conclusions. I am summarizing and providing links to allegations of war crimes. As stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes - "Since many war crimes are not ultimately prosecuted (due to lack of political will, lack of effective procedures, or other practical and political reasons[2]), historians and lawyers will often make a serious case that war crimes occurred, even if there was no formal investigations or prosecution of the alleged crimes or an investigation cleared the alleged perpetrators." This Wikipedia page lists numerous instances of alleged war crimes for which no prosecution took place.
Allegations of war crimes are indeed a significant consequence of any war. As stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime - "War crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict" - hence this is not only a significant consequence, but in fact a serious consequence. Also as stated at that same Wikipedia page - "War crimes are significant in international humanitarian law" - again establishing significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.189.230 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A serious crime may not be significant in this context - seriousness is not necessarily a good measure of significance. But more to the point, the alleged crimes themselves are not in any sense part of the aftermath of the Falklands War - for the simple reason that they are supposed to have occurred while the war took place. Even if we accept all of your arguments on OR, POV and everything else - and I don't - it is clearly irrelevant to discuss events that are supposed to have taken place during a war in an article about the aftermath of that war, except as background. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean?

[edit]

I'm having a hard time working out what the sentence ..

"Mobilisation of national identity in Argentina, called the "Malvinas Spirit", has now developed in a constant recovery of the relevant aspects of the war that boost national self-image"

.. actually means. Any chance someone who knows could re-phrase it?

84.92.32.221 (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, So no replies so far. I followed the cited reference. It is to a book by Dr. Nora Femenia, a lecturer specialising in conflict resolution at Florida international University. The book is an academic study of the conflict. At 240'ish pages It's a bit heavy going for me (being written is a similar linguistic style to the sentence in question) but the bits I did plough through gave me no indication that it was anything other than a genuine reference. It grinds no axe.

The above sentence appears in a few places in the internet, either as copies of the wiki article or standalone.

Whatever, I still can't really make head nor tail of it.

I'm pretty sure it has a broadly similar meaning for Argentine patriotic feeling as the later sentence ...

"Ultimately, the successful conclusion of the war gave a noticeable fillip to British patriotic feeling, with the mobilisation of national identity encapsulated in the so-called "Falklands Factor".

.. does for the UK.

Unless anyone objects I intend to replace the sentence with...

"National Identity in Argentina is often mobilised by appeal to the "Malvinas spirit", the idea that the war was a brave, even heroic, attempt at wresting the illegitimate ownership of the islands from a militarily superior power and thereby a necessary step towards making Argentina a great nation".

I will reference "http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5227&context=etd" pp 46 in support.

I'll do this in a couple of days

84.92.32.221 (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aftermath of the Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aftermath of the Falklands War. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath on the Army and Marines

[edit]

The Marines fought hard and well. The Welsh Guard (an Army unit) did not. I have heard/read several comments about this difference, some very critical of the Army. I came here hoping to see an "aftermath" that included post-action analysis of lessons learned from the foot-sloggers' contributions. I'm disappointed by the absence of such material. It was primarily a foot soldiers' conflict after all. 122.104.32.254 (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Martyn[reply]

The Welsh Guards and Scots Guards had just come off ceremonial duties, and went from expecting to be a garrison force, to a combat force. https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/falklands-war-was-nearly-a-disaster-1-2209128

...50 men – the majority of whom were Welsh Guards – were killed when the Argentine air force damaged the Sir Tristram and destroyed Sir Galahad, two troop carriers...

Yesterday, he said: “Because the Falklands War was victorious, the cock-ups were overlooked at the time – but people should be aware of them. The British Army knew they made mistakes. At some point between leaving Britain and arriving at the Falklands, 5 Infantry Brigade went from a garrison force to a fighting force and wasn’t properly trained or equipped.” The initial plan was that 5 Brigade would garrison the islands after recapture. This made strategic sense, Gardiner says, as the brigade had recently been stripped of its two most battle-ready units, 2 and 3 Para, which were transferred to 3 Commando Brigade. In their place was slotted the Welsh and Scots Guards, who had recently been committed to ceremonial duties in London and lacked the equipment and training for a winter war.

Also the brigade’s senior commanding officers had not taken part in appropriate military exercises and, Gardiner argues, lacked the experience necessary for joint warfare and the understanding that each manoeuvre needed to be co-ordinated with other elements.

However, the chief of the defence staff decided that 5 Infantry Brigade, which Gardiner describes as a “semi-trained, improvisory, ill-supported and unready formation” would now be fighting. The brigade then made a tactical error that could have had serious consequences for the whole campaign to reclaim the islands.

The lessons learned, I believe, were that ceremonial duties shouldn't be allowed to blunt a unit's capabilities. However, this was only part of the problem - the organisation of the task force was a hurried affair, and there are logistical, command, and organisational issues caused by this. Some units begged borrowed or stole the resources they needed. Some were left wanting. Some were unlucky:
Possibly, the loss of 32 Welsh Guards, plus many more wounded, in the Bluff Cove air attacks somewhat affected their morale and fighting capability as well.
I'd be interested in seeing what sources you have to say they did perform badly though. (Hohum @) 19:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't perform badly. To whit the Battle of Mount Tumbledown. WCMemail 11:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NOTNEWS is no justification to violate the NPOV policy

[edit]

The Vatican, Argentina, and UK are starting a reconciliation process which is news which constitutes as a encyclopedic fact. There are even future potential visits to Argentina and the Falklands, including by Pope Francis.JoeScarce (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC) That NOTNEWS policy only applies to breaking stories, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities, over-mentioning of individuals beyond specified event, and news resembling diaries. This news surrounding what is an encyclopedic fact which I included after the event happened is neitherJoeScarce (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something actually comes of it, it's not particularly relevant. (Hohum @) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is utterly irrelevant, nothing has come out of it, there's been various things handed back and forth. To whit a trumpet, a helmet and we didn't feel the need to report on those. And no a reconciliation process hasn't started, Argentina has just elected a hard core Peronist government with various Malvinist fanatics vowing to increase the rhetoric. You are seriously misinformed. WCMemail 01:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments on other articles. WCMemail 01:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: History of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PspOU (article contribs). Peer reviewers: IllusiveAttic11, Graybeboy.

— Assignment last updated by IllusiveAttic11 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aftermath_of_the_Falklands_War&oldid=1213687346"