This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Falklands War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine history. If you would like to participate, you can improve Falklands War, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
[1] It's been added again, I've already reverted today, if someone else could do the honours. WCMemail 13:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
[2] and this as well, edit warred back in after being removed. WCMemail 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I honestly don't see your issue with having the length of the conflict in the infobox. It is like on World War I. And I'm not editwarring, you just gave no reason for removal, besides "inappropriate." 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, you have to give justification for inclusion as well, and "It is like on World War I" is simply a claim of WP:OTHERSTUFF so you need a better argument. My rebuttal would be that the Falklands conflict and WW1 are on different scales - the Falklands was little more than a skirmish in comparison to global conflict, and as the timeline was so much shorter I don't think it necessary to pin it down so explicitly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
My counter is that because it is so short, it should be pinned down. Long wars, we may agree, don't need to be down to the specific days, but short wars like the Cenepa War and this one, it is important IMO to have the length. It really doesn't hurt to add a specification that conforms with many other infoboxes on Wikipedia. 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have a fairly neutral view on this. There is no doubt that the speed of the British response to get there and get the job done, without unnecessary detraction and prevarication, was a notable feature of this war, but whether it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox is I think, a mute point. I do not think its inclusion does any harm but on the other hand I think infobox detail should be kept as brief as possible. The Cenepa War article is a good example of an infobox crammed full of clutter. Another minor point is the lack of a precise start date. Even though I accept 2 April is usually used, we could make cases for other dates being the start date. To the IP: why not get a user name? Your edits will carry more weight if you do. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6; What does hurt is you edit warring to try to force it in [3][4][5]. You've been warned about your edit warring on your talk page. That last one came after the warning on your talk page, and you're not heeding the warning. This needs to stop. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have done a total of 3 edits on this article, so I Think I am ok to call myself neutral. Having just the dates is fine; having the months, weeks and days is unnecessary Ilenart626 (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Disagree with the addition per rationale supplied by Chaheel Riens, I would written pretty much the same. The edit warring is not cool. WCMemail 10:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Like I responded to a relevant note on my talk page, it is my opinion that the description "a 10-week undeclared war" and the infobox entry "Date: 2 April – 14 June 1982" suffice. Apcbg (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I cannot have an account on Wikipedia for personal reasons, to clear up any confusion. My IP is unfortunately dynamic as well. 2601:85:C101:BA30:79AE:F057:F966:38F8 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Consensus?
I see no consensus to remove 'decisive', neither do I see any clearly expressed rationale for doing so. Whey is it being removed?
You have already been pointed at WP:MILMOS, which is entirely clear on this point. If you have any issue with that, the place to change it would be there, not here. You would, however, be well advised to first review the discussions that led to the adoption of the current advice in MILMOS. Kahastoktalk 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to add, the British official history stresses that the war wasn't actually decisive as Argentina continued to maintain its claim over the Falklands and the British were required to maintain a very substantial force there (which continues to this day). Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the MILMOS consensus, I have always been a little puzzled at the effort some people put into calling this war a decisive victory. A roughly only 2.5/1 casualty ratio; a very large tonnage loss of shipping incl 4 warships; a massive expense; a conditional surrender; and a position now that some would say has left the UK in a worse position than before the war. Is that a decisive victory? Or is decisive referring to the resurgence in UK national pride, or the overthrow of the Argentine govt the victory caused? The point is the word decisive is open to interpretation, making it unsuitable for use in the infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, Argentina is no longer present in occupation on the Falklands, and they aren't likely to try anything like that again, are they. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.22 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
French duplicity or anti french bias ?
I think the reference used to show a so call "french duplicity" (46) isn't clear enough to be verifiable and credible. It seems to be more an anti-french bias than other think. Rogarbos (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems clear enough to me after I tracked down the full citation and quote. I fixed the sourcing and re-worded the question. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
There was no "french duplicity" (sic) Dassault is a private French company and the French State had no power to order French citizens outside of France to do anything. A presumably well-educated man such as John Nott should have been aware of this fact.
Dassualt had pre-existing contracts with Argentina to supply Exocet and its personnel within Argentina were vulnerable to Argentinian Government pressure if such arrangements were unilaterally withdrawn.
The whole conflict could have been easily avoided if Britain had had a decent Defence Minister, instead of a man who couldn't even do nothing, well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.22 (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Civilians
Was there any kind of resistance to the takeover by civilians? In a quick skim of the article, I don't see anything.
Yes, a number of islanders assisted British forces, some sabotaged Argentine equipment, one fought with 3 Para at Longdon. WCMemail 11:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Might be worth adding something about it if you have a reference handy.
Simon Adler, can you clarify your rationale behind this edit please? If you agree that "[t]his is the english WP. All readers will know the different designations for the islands", why did you reinstate the Argentinian name - especially when we don't do it anywhere else in the article? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
As has been done by a colleague. It is in the UN text. Regards Simon Adler (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
As of 2007?
[6] Do we really need to qualify this statement? It's not like Argentina has shown any tendency to drop it's national obsession with the Falklands. WCMemail 09:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree, sentence has been edited. Farawayman (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
