Jump to content

Talk:Argentine Military Cemetery

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

List of the buried?

[edit]

Is there any website with a list of the buried at the Argentine Military Cemetery? It would then be unproblematic to find out who's unaccounted for. Airmen, sailors, soldiers, NCOs, officers, grunts... --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:"Necessary Evil (talk | contribs) (→Breakdown of the casualties: I don't know where the 5 on board Learjet LJ-35A (shot down June 7th) are buried, might be 5 of the 17 unaccounted?)" See here But... Mt belief is that they were reburied in the Port Dawin Plot Steve Bowen (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 15 dead A-4P pilots (excl. García & Casco) and 6 Dagger pilots, but I don't know where they are buried. The Mirage pilot, Gustavo García Cuerva, is he buried at Stanley? Captain Luis Castagnari from air force ground crew died on East Falkland. Juan Ramón Turano from navy "ground crew" (Base Islas Malvinas) prob. died close to Stanley. One MB339 pilot (3rd May, Stanley), Julio Omar Benítez (GC-83 Rio Iguazú)--Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any dead that were buried by the Argentines, were reburied by the British after the war. This included pilots whose bodies were recovered after being lost. The table in the article is supposed to list the soldiers, sailors & airmen whose remains were not recovered or were lost / buried in other locations as the main article is about those interred at the Port Darwin cemetery. I am hoping that the collective "intellectual horsepower" of Wikipedia, coupled with the interest this article may generate in Argentina might show where these additional casualties lay. I'm aware that some of these may have been returned to the mainland or died from wounds there, after becoming casualties before the surrender. Your update on the Isla de los Estados is correct & the link is great. I believe my higher number is a frequently misquoted one that was derived during the war from "journalistic licence". --TenthEagle (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to create the article on the Spanish Wikipedia. I live next to a Commonwealth War Grave and some of the tomb stones got An Airman of the 1939-45 War - Known Unto God.. I believe that the bodies had a RAF uniform or were recovered from a burned out wreck. Even though the 123 Argentines couldn't be identified by name, their uniforms might reveal their units. Does the inscription "Soldado Argentino Solo Concocido Por Dios" means that he was a conscript private in the army, someone in the army or from Argentina's armed forces? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can create it on the Spanish Wikipedia, but I don't know what to call it! Perhaps "el cementerio de guerra argentino (Islas Malvinas)" or something. If I kategorise it properly, IW it to this article and use the image from the graveyard, I'm convinced that a lot of Argentines will contribute to it. Then we can translate some of the new information to here. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Google Earth it's called "Cementerio de Darwin", so that's my suggestion. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Lynx

[edit]

The only definitive record that I can find for any casualties for this incident is on page 54 of "Falklands the Air War" ISBN0-85368-842-7 where it sates "Lynx 0735/3-H-142 collided with the Hull of Santísima Trinidad & was lost with it's Crew". I therefor believe that at least two of the missing 20 are here.

Thanks for the start of the Spanish Version Steve Bowen (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crew did not die [1]. they are all war veterans [2] --Jor70 (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, my search continues & it's good to see you here again...
Hi Jor70, would you please wordsmith the Spanish page since my Spanish is on a nivel básico ;-) BTW did you know that Hercules' Lynx (3-H-141) was bought by Denmark in 1987[3]? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
es:Cementerio de Darwin hecho!. Yes!, would be nice if you could obtain a photo of KDM S-035 for me ;-) --Jor70 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
S-035 never flew in the Danish Navy, it was cut in two: the cockpit is used as a flight simulator for the education of observers (Left Seat Crew Member) at the "Naval Warfare School" and its cabin is used for training helicopter egress by Special Forces. Denmark also bought special tools and spare parts no longer needed by Argentina. I'll see if I can get someone to take pictures of S-035. Happy New Year --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing dog tags.

[edit]

Can anyone explain why so many of the Argentine soldiers didn't have dog tags? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I supposed, as many other things, were not planned and/or considered necesary. --Jor70 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Argentines assumed when they launched their invasion that the British would just shrug their shoulders and do nothing about an unprovoked attack on their country. So, they probably figured that the money to be spent on dog tags would be better spent on wine and caviar for the military dictatorship's celebration party, since, after all, none of their soldiers would be killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BE60:853:954A:E909:358E:D6A4 (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

Would be interesting to find if there is any other cementery where the flag is not flown --Jor70 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are precadents, for quite a long time after WW2 the German flag was not flown in any of the cemeteries in France. I would suggest that we don't comment on it in the article, the issues on both sides do not make it easy for a NPOV edit. Justin talk 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Internments

[edit]

According to "The Falklands War, Then and Now" by Gordon Ramsey, the bodies interred at Stanley cemetery were re-interred at Darwin after the war. I can provide a full reference when I retrieve the book next week. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my opionion as well as the Islanders wouldn't want this, I will edit the main article

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TenthEagle (talk • contribs)

I still think Carlos Benitez fact merit a mention --Jor70 (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree, seems better to refer to the re-internment in Darwin. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 19:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unindent

Ramsey has done a thorough job of researching all the resting places of the Falklands dead. BTW does the 5 you haven't accounted for include Casado, whose remains were identfied by DNA testing in 2008(?) and subsequently interred at Darwin? Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Fernando Casado, copilot Canberra B-108 was the last FAA member killed (Jun13, Baco flight ) and his remains were keep in Stanley Police station for 20 years [4] Its supposed to be already counted in the 237 of the cemetery. --Jor70 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According this [5] [6] Cpt Casado remains were buried at Cordoba --Jor70 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

See [7]. Though discouraged, there is nothing to stop an Argentine flag being flown. The statement it is not allowed is incorrect.

Regarding the lede, the statement that the site chosen was to be out of sight is incorrect. The land was donated by a farmer at Goose Green so that the fallen could have a "christian burial". I will remove it, there are enough misunderstandings. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best but closest I have to taking you there http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_omzpS4ns0 The Flag isn't allowed Steve Bowen (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the document above says different. You counter a reliable source stating that it isn't illegal with a YouTube video? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Way too aggressive & I did say not the best, the Document Actually says "Please be aware that the public waving or displaying of an Argentine Flag anywhere in the Falkland Islands has the potential to cause alarm and distress. Please refrain from

doing this to prevent unnecessary upset and inconvenience." & there is No Flag & aside from some small ones on individual graves, there has never been one. Still leave it as it is if it keeps you happy YPLJ...Steve Bowen (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Please note the Argentine flag draped over the coffin. Any perception of aggression on your part is entirely your own invention, please WP:AGF. Lets not put unverified information into articles eh? There is enough misperception without adding to it or perpetuating bad feeling with outdated information. 21:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:MB339 ARA TF Carlos Benitez.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:MB339 ARA TF Carlos Benitez.jpg, 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 image page (File:MB339 ARA TF Carlos Benitez.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up Suggestion

[edit]

[9] Its actually well known that the reason the Argentine Government refused to accept the repatriation of bodies is to ensure a continued presence on the islands. So much so, this statement is cited almost verbatim from the BBC documentary. Back when the cite was added, WP:RSN confirmed it was acceptable as a reliable source.

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP The behaviour of this IP is noted here, the usual style is to simply label every one a cunt. I've never known the guy enter into any meaningful discussion so a heads up for anyone who wishes to comment. WCMemail 13:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think my edit changed the substance of the sentence. It didn't. Perhaps learn to comprehend a bit better before going crazy and shouting "cunt" everywhere. 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that it isn't properly sourced. The source is a television program - 20th Century Battlefields. The television program was taken offline. But Wikipedia does not ban offline sources. If it was reliable when it was online then it is as reliable offline. The fact that it is offline does not mean it now fails verification. Kahastok talk 08:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I disagree, and I reverted you. This is so much a non-neutral statement that it requires accessible sourcing--and by "accessible" I don't mean "online". For this kind of statement, a television documentary simply does not suffice. Besides, what was it in that documentary? Who said it? The narrator? (so, "the BBC"?) Some commentator? And what were their credentials? This is the problem here: not that it's not online, but that it's not attributed to any one person whose credibility we can assess. Until then, you simply can't stick this statement in. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Drmies. In what fashion did Argentina refuse the repatriation? Via an official reply that said "We will not take the bodies back because the government of Argentina believes that their remaining ensures a continuing presence there." Or did the government send a simple refusal, and non-government entities such as the press say keep the bodies there? When was the offer made – immediately post-war (before interment), or years later? Is it possible that Britain has contacted the families of the individual deceased and offered repatriation? Better sourcing and more detail is needed before we can go beyond the simple offer & decline. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and good of you to point your finger on some intricacies. Ideally we'd have sourcing from the Argentinian and the English side or, better yet, from some totally uninvolved side, but then this is probably not such an important topic for outsiders. Everyone knows, or should know, that everything related to this conflict remains a loaded matter. I looked at our article on the television program and while I don't think that the Snows are easily used as propaganda funnels, this is hardly on the level of a book or study. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) First things first, you're insisting that this be marked this as failing verification. That means that you have watched the TV programme and that the claim in question is not made by the television programme. It does not mean that you judge the TV programme as unreliable. It does not mean that you weren't able to watch the TV programme. Have you in fact watched the programme? If you have not, you cannot possibly know whether it fails verification or not.
Secondly, you could resolve the issue of the credentials of the presenters by reading the article on the programme. It's here. The presenters were Peter and Dan Snow. You can read about them in their articles here and here. You will find that both are reputable and well-respected. I do not accept that we need a large amount of information beyond what we put in the article, in order to put it in the article. If the programme says that Argentina declined knowing that that would mean maintaining a presence on the islands, then there is no reason why we cannot say that.
I don't know how this is "so much a non-neutral statement" or who it is supposed to favour. It's actually rather more dumbed-down than the standard story, which is that Argentina refused repatriation on the grounds that the bodies were already in Argentina. Kahastok talk 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see how this is non-neutral? To keep bodies there to continue a presence? I'm not going to repeat what I said above about the program, their possible speakers, and the need for better sourcing, and if you don't understand that there is no such thing as "the programme" which can "say" something, well, then I think we're done here. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Asserting that the Maldives [Malvinas] were Argentine territory, the government of Argentina declined an offer by Britain to have the bodies repatriated to the mainland." – S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are even asking these questions demonstrates why I removed "failed verification" and leaves me at a loss to understand why you put it back in. It is clear that you have not checked the source and judged that the claim is not made. There is no reason to assume that the claim is "not in citation given" and therefore there is no reason to believe that there is a problem with sourcing here.
Perhaps I would understand the point on neutrality if I knew which side do you think it's favouring? Is it favouring Britain because it makes it look like Argentina was using the bodies as a pawn in a political game, or is it favouring Argentina by demonstrating how important it was to them to maintain a presence on islands that they claimed were their territory, or by downplaying the case that Argentina used the bodies as a pawn in a political game? I can see it argued either way.
FWIW I don't think anyone asserts that the Maldives are Argentine territory. In English, "Falkland Islands" and "Falklands" are overwhelmingly more common in neutral sources than any other name, so that's what we use. Kahastok talk 17:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for an edit to simply state that Argentina refused. However, fundamentally a number of neutral third party commentators have made the link between Argentina's refusal to repatriate the dead (or give the families a choice whether they wanted it) as politically motivated to ensure a presence in the islands. The BBC documentary referred to above is simply an example of such - do you want more? The previous statement that the IP made that it simply Argentina's preference was frankly censoring the fact it was done for political reasons, the families were never given a choice as those of British servicemen were and the suggestion of a reference to being Argentine soil would be propaganda. I do think Kahastok makes an important point, however ,that by not mentioning its used as a political pawn is doing readers a disservice. The claim its failed verification when the source was checked previously at RSN is specious [10] diff shows it is acceptable, whether it remains online or not. WCMemail 18:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't GB & Argentina resume diplomatic relations at sometime? What sort of agreement re the bodies were included in their settlement? If we could get a higher level of sourcing on the question, it would be helpful. In the meantime, how about a quote from the BBC program – that would help in verification. – S. Rich (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They did but it took a long time and you make a good point about sourcing this better and the general political manoeuvrings. The Argentine Government made the visits by the families difficult for a long time for example by using them for political end. BTW the documentary is on YouTube if you want to source a quote I will do so presently [11] its about 57 mins in. As regards it being a political pawn, its been used as an issue repeatedly by the Kirchner Government Mercopress is a good reference for the political manoeuvrings around the cemetery. WCMemail 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks for the RSN link. I wasn't arguing it because I couldn't find it.
OTOH I did find a copy of the original documentary. I wasn't going to link it because of WP:COPYVIOEL (though WCM has given one). But it will (probably) be available through the BBC iPlayer for a month from 5 September in any case. I transcribed what Dan Snow said at this point:

After the war the British government offered to return the bodies of the Argentinian dead to Argentina for burial, but their government refused. They said that these islands were part of Argentina, and the bodies would remain here. For the Falkland islanders, these graves are daily reminder that Argentina refuses to drop its claim their homeland.

The first two sentences are in a piece to camera with DS walking through the cemetery. Then there is a pause, and the third sentence is in voiceover over close-ups on graves.
I believe that this, plus other sources (e.g. this) make the stronger point easier to source, and more appropriate. I think the reason why the bodies are in the Falklands and not mainland Argentina is one of the first questions a reader is going to ask, and one we need to answer. Kahastok talk 19:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With your second source, we say "Following the war, Great Britain gathered the Argentine war dead and offered to repatriate the casualties. When Argentina declined the offer based on its claim of sovereignty, the bodied were buried at the present location." [1][2] – S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Klaus Dodds (23 November 2002). Pink Ice: Britain and the South Atlantic Empire. I.B.Tauris. pp. 175–. ISBN 978-1-86064-769-7.. Another source, if the link violates a policy I'll remove it.
The edit proposed has some errors of fact by omission. The dead were removed from temporary battlefield graves in 1983, they were reburied in what was intended to be a cemetery on land donated by the Chairman of the Falkland Islands company. He wanted to ensure the Argentine dead had a decent Christian burial, as he put it, and was appalled at the way they were being used for political ends. In 1984, the British attempted to establish relations with the Alfonsin Government and one of the items under discussion was repatriation and identification of the war dead. Relations weren't normalised until 1990 as the Argentine Government insisted a pre-condition on any talks be the resumption of sovereignty negotiations to transfer sovereignty to Argentina. The war dead were used as a political pawn to continue with the sovereignty claim, even to the point of interfering with the visits of Argentine families. To simply repeat an Argentine statement in wikipedia's voice is not enough, we need to present this complex situation with an analysis by neutral third parties. WCMemail 20:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, the politics surrounding the KIAs and repatriation and normalization should be in the War Aftermath article. For this cemetery article, and for these dead, we say they were recovered, consolidated, ID'd, and buried on the donated land. – S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't divorce the two I'm afraid. For example 123 KIA remain unidentified. In the immediate aftermath of the battles, Argentine officers refused to help in identifying the dead. In disinterring the remains from battlefields, the British firm responsible did what they could to identify the dead but as many didn't have dog tags it proved impossible. A request for assistance in 1984 was rebuffed. Yet in recent years, the Goverment of Christina Kirchner has tried to use identification of the dead for fairly blatant propaganda - example. The cemetery is constantly used for propaganda reasons. (I've added your quote by the way) WCMemail 20:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rather agree.
By all accounts, the British were very keen to see a repatriation. I've got a couple of sources in front of me here. I have "Argentine officials, furious at British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's visit to the Falkland Islands, denied her claim Tuesday that they had abandoned their war dead".[1] We can quote Thatcher: "'We would like to have their war dead home because this is what we think their parents and families would want,' she said. 'If they don't take them back, we must re-bury them in a fitting cemetery'".[2] I believe the offer to repatriate stands today.
The islanders were of the same view: "[t]he government decision [to rebury the bodies] reportedly has aroused opposition among some Falkland Islanders who say it will give Argentine relatives of the dead a legal claim to visit the island." Argentines were at this time barred entirely from visiting the islands.[2]
FWIW Argentina's objection at that time is reported as "Argentina is faced with a tricky diplomatic dilemma over the issue since a request to the International Red Cross for repatriation of the bodies could imply recognition of Britain's claim to sovereignty".[2] This is all January 1983 though, so anything later would (obviously) not be reported. Kahastok talk 21:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few more sources from newspaper articles. Couple of articles about a threat to send a ship filled with relatives in 1983 [12],[13], [14], [15] - as hostilities didn't end officially till 1990, the British said yes to the trip provided it was an a neutral vessel, instead an Argentine vessel was chartered there were hysterical claims that the British threatened to torpedo it as well as threats to blow up and murder British nationals. First official visit 1991 [16], [17], [18]. Early report from 1983 when the idea of an Argentine cemetery was first mooted [19], [20], [21], [22] (interesting report claiming the Argentine military government sought to arrange repatriation through the Red Cross), early report about the plans to form the cemetery [23]. WCMemail 21:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]

A lot of good sources. Thanks. IMO we should downplay the politics related to the war as much as possible and treat this article for what it is – about the memorial to the KIAs. The political controversies which tangentially relate to this small and remote aspect of the War and its aftermath can be elaborated upon in the articles about War and Aftermath. Thus, when readers of those larger articles want to know about the cemetery itself, they click and find it. In this article, we provide hatnotes or see also links to the controversies. Moreover, we will get more input from interested readers who look at the larger topics.
Interesting, for American and British war dead, the common practice was to bury them in the theater where they died. Hence we have the American Battle Monuments Commission and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (and other bodies) which care for overseas military cemeteries. It was not until the Korean War that Americans took up the practice of 100% repatriation. With this in mind, what has Argentina done with KIAs in its past wars? – S. Rich (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last major war Argentina had been involved in, aside from internal wars such as the Conquest of the Desert, was the 1864–1870 War of the Triple Alliance (known for a really petty reason on Wikipedia by its Brazilian name the Paraguayan War). There is nothing comparable.
Up till the Falklands War, the British had buried their war dead in theatre, this was the first time repatriation became possible.
A question, given even the foundation of the cemetery following Thatcher's visit in January 1983, how do you hope to downplay the politics? WCMemail 22:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Associated Press, 11 January 1983, Argentine officials deny they abandoned Falklands dead
  2. ^ a b c Paula Butturini, United Press International, Britain to re-bury Argentine war dead, 14 January 1983

Off-topic data about other burials

[edit]

This article, about the cemetery, should be cut down to the actual topic. The data about non-cemetery burials and MIAs belongs at Falklands War#Casualties. See also links can be added for the various memorials & the Belgrano. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been intending to add some material there, so if its going to be removed I'd appreciate a heads up. The article is wrong and the crew of the Learjet are buried on West Falkland after their remains were found in 1995. WCMemail 19:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency about number not recovered

[edit]

The following two statements seem inconsistent.

• The greatest loss of life in the war was in the sinking of the Argentine Navy cruiser ARA General Belgrano, with 321 members of crew and 2 civilians on board at the time, with most of these going down with her.

• Sixty-one Argentine combatants were lost with aircraft or ships and their remains were not recovered

JDAWiseman (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Argentine Military Cemetery. 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) 21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argentine_Military_Cemetery&oldid=1205318776"