Talk:1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands

Numbers of Argentine Casualties

The numbers are listed as 1 killed and 3 wounded, but at another part of the article it says that two British snipers killed and wounded a number of Argentine soldiers. What's the story with this? Did the Argentinian government play down the number of men they lost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.186.210 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some suggestions that this took place. At KE hospital Dr Alison Bleaney recorded 2 dead and 1 critically injured removed by the Argentines. However, wikipedia works based on sources, which all say 1 killed and 3 wounded. I believe there is a new book coming out this year that tackles this. WCM_email 08:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The Royal Marines' own official report: "Report by Major M J Norman Royal Marines Invasion of Falkland Islands on Friday 2 April 1982" dated 18 April 1982 states specifically 5 Argentine servicemen killed, 17 wounded, 3 prisoners and 1 Amtrack vehicle destroyed. These were only the ones seen around Government House. The article is in error; Cpl. Terry Pares was not a sniper. However, Cpl. Gill did claim in his report and subsequent interviews to have killed two and hit a third who was classed as wounded as he was not seen dead. Cpl. Pares engaged another who was classed as a 'confirmed kill'. To this should be added the sinking of an LCVP Landing Craft which was wrongly ascribed to Marine R. Overall. Just for the record, the men listed as wounded needs amendment: Padre Maffezini caught his eye on a low-hanging telegraph wire and required two stitches, which was after the battle. Lt. Cmdr Santillan fell during a charge at Fairy Cove towards Navy Point and suffered an 'acute sprain' of the ankle. Neither are battle casualties. Full list of sources and information is listed in The First Casualty - The Untold Story of the Falklands War by Military Historian Ricky D Phillips which reveals that the true figure may well have been at least 100 killed and wounded on the Argentine side, who were later disposed of with napalm on April 21 1982 Real History Man (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

[1],[2] Whilst the book is an WP:SPS, this has been reported in the open press. They can be used as sources. I'll work up an edit later today. WCM_email 11:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I happen to know that the book in question "The First Casualty" is NOT an WP:SPS but is traditionally published. I appreciate any edits to reflect the two reports. Real History Man (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Number in Combat"

An editor has decided based on his own research to add the claim that only 90 Argentine soldiers engaged British forces. This is a ridiculous claim to make, at any one time not all soldiers would be engaged in combat so it could have been a dozen soldiers at Governement House on the British side for example. Its further ridiculous since the commander of the Argentine forces is well known for stating they thought if they came in great numbers it would deter the British from defending the islands. The person responsible has since revert warred their changes into the article. Would be grateful for a revert back to last stable consensus version. WCM_email 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well the source does not say 90 men in combat, it says 90 commandos landed at Mullet creek for a decapitation operation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

84 Argentine special forces landed at Mullet Creek, 14 Buzo Tactico landed on the Santa Fe, added to this are Alpha Company BIM1, plus Delta, Echo and Fox companies BIM2 in 21 Amtrack amphibious vehicles. There were also a large amount of Argentine personnel both seen and killed/wounded for whom there is no unit recognition currently. Real History Man (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. 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/20071014125543/http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/South-Georgia.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/South-Georgia.html

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) 21:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ricky D. Phillips - Historian?

I have a significant problem with the section referenced to the book "The First Casualty" by Ricky D. Phillips, published by BEIC Books Ltd, ("British East India Company Books") which Companies House shows Phillips as being an officer of here, and says he's the managing director here. It appears to have a repertoire of exactly one book. Clearly self published.

What bona fides does Phillips have to be described as a Military Historian? I can find none. The book being mentioned in some newspapers lends it little credibility. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. This fails the WP:REDFLAG test. It should be removed. (Hohum ^@) 15:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I probably would suggest a middle ground. As it has received coverage in the press it seems appropriate to mention it. However, no more than a passing mention. The addition by Real History Man is giving it WP:UNDUE coverage. WCM_email 17:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree if it had any credibility whatever, but it fails WP:REDFLAG totally. Also, the press coverage is is pretty poor, and no peer reviewing of the content occurs.

Promotional, self published, no bona fides, no peer review, extraordinary claims. Just one of those is a warning, but all of them is a blaring alarm. (Hohum ^@) 20:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you check the history, I reverted this as an WP:SPS. What changed my mind was the newspaper reports backed by veterans that gave some credibility to the story. I do think some of the claims are overblown but can't dismiss it entirely as it is backed by people who were there. WCM_email 23:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We only have Phillips word on that as far as I can see. How much worse does the source need to be before you think it's bad? This one is truly awful. (Hohum ^@) 01:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

[3] So no we don't just have his word for that. My edit simply suggested that casualties may have been higher, it was based on the newspaper not the book. WCM_email 06:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

[4] This is all I'm suggesting. WCM_email 07:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we at least need to avoid actively advertising or plugging the book as this edit does. It appears to me that the source we are actually using is the newspaper reports that refer to the book, not the book itself, so those are the appropriate references.

On the wider point, I must say I share some of Hohum's concerns about this. The Portsmouth local paper is the only one that comes close to being independent here. The Plymouth paper basically gives Phillips a column to write about his book, the Express story boils down to, some guy wrote a book and this is what it says, notably attributing every claim to the book rather than treating it as fact. Do we have any evidence of wider coverage or acceptance of these claims? Kahastok talk 19:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There isn't much other than the brief press coverage, although this has been going round social media for about a year. I was aware it was being published but was a bit sceptical. The only reason I gave it any credence was the Plymouth report where veterans were interviewed. Hence, the very limited coverage I suggested per WP:DUE. I'm not happy using the book as a source at all. WCM_email 20:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced the veterans responses back up the claims in the book. I'm also suspicious of a WP:COI issue here. (Hohum ^@) 23:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The veterans' responses ARE the claims in the book. It would seem curious that those same men are quoted here but disbelieved elsewhere? What we have here is a purely Argentine perspective which is not representative of the Marines' own reports or points of view and therefore is not objective but biased. Real History Man (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That's Phillips claim, but the book fails so many red flags for wikipedia inclusion that it's lucky to get a single sentence. (Hohum ^@) 08:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That is his claim and I'm lucky enough to know him and a number of these amazing veterans. I actually find it laughable how certain people seem intent on being 'better at Wiki' than in actually promoting and representing the historical truth...or even being interested in it. I can tell you 100% that the veterans' responses back up the 'claims' and I put that in parentheses because (had you read it) you would see that it is their claims backed up by him as a historian... not the other way around. So please... be 'better at Wiki' if it makes you feel powerful or whatever, but be aware that you are wrong and that you are biased, prejudiced, bordering upon 'troll' if not already way past that mark (WCM that is) and so determined to 'be right' that you refuse to accept anything which might challenge your own perceptions... I think you have a lonely life, trolling Wiki all day. Real History Man (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own rules, you need to review them more carefully. It's not a soapbox, nor for book promotion. Also, your flagrant disregard for WP:AGF and WP:NPA is telling. We're still yet to see Phillips bona fides as a historian, or verifiability or peer review of his extraordinary claims, which are made in a single, proven self-published, book. Come up with something of substance to keep the entry, or it will need to be removed entirely per WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:SPS & WP:PROMOTION . (Hohum ^@) 18:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Raised at ANI, there appears to be a clear COI here and the personal attacks are not acceptable. WCM_email 07:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be soap-box for some personal pride here and it's yours, my friends. Now let us start to chat...that's what we historians do. There isn't line of code for that, you'll be sorry to learn, it's called 'knowledge' - I'm sure Wikipedia has a link to it. If you don't bristle at the education too much, you might just learn something. Do try it.

Now, let's talk about 'Peer Review' - Professor Tony Pollard, Head of Conflict History at Glasgow University (You should know that, WCM you'r not as faceless as you think) and also a Falklands Specialist, presenter of 'Nazi Megastructures' and 'Two Men in a Trench' on History Channel, considered the UK's top battlefield archaeologist and even possibly the world's top....his peer review appears on the back cover of that book and in full on the last page. Likewise with Declan Power who wrote 'Siege at Jadotivile' - another battle they said didn't happen until he unveiled it. Now it is fact.

Now, having ascertained that, despite your attempts at actively trolling an defaming a person, the book is NOT self published (an edit you're screaming about, I notice) I see very little in the way of credibility for your own arguments. I even noticed that you undid a recent edit which corrected who specifically shot Pedro Giachino...It mentions Mick Sellen (who definitely did although he died of cancer in 2013), Harry Dorey (who was stuck to Sir Rex Hunt all night and was nowhere near the action), and Marine Fleet...who at that specific time was in the UK, having been part of the advance party home...I find not ONE verifiable source to state that Cpl. Gordon Fleet was there or shot Pedro Giachino. It would, of course, be the longest shot in th world, having stratched 8,000 miles around half the globe. I assume you have the full list of people who were there? No? I already know you don't. I can assure you that the first shot fired at Pedro Giachino was by Marine Colin 'Tiny' Jones who was joined by Mick Sellen, Andy Macdonald and Murray Paterson...but do please produce a line of code which says that someone 8000 miles away could have shot him. Diego Quiroga - lovely man by the way - will happily tell anyone that he wasn't just shot in the arm (the right by the way...there doesn't seem to be a line of code for that, either) but also full in the chest which broke four ribs and cut his liver in half. He was also shot in the pelvis but his Swiss army knife absorbed the blow. He still has the bullet. It's a 9mm so could only have been fired by Mick Sellen. Met his wife Sandie once, lovely lady. So don't let an old historian who knows something hamper your efforts to tag some rule. I recommend that you listen to experience, wisdom and good, old fashioned common sense. It is lacking these days. All I see is a blatant, personal attempt by you to attack and defame someone for some very personal reasons and - although we both know what they are - I shall refrain from using them here.

In short, do us a favour...there's probably a rule, a line of code, a 'something' but there is also knowledge and common sense which you lack behind your keyboard there. Educate yourself. Wikipedia is here to be a resource of what is. It is here to promote knowledge, understanding and (God be praised if a younger generation get this) research, which includes conjecture. Please do go on to list every infraction of some rule somewhere, but you are simply being 'better at Wiki' - you are not right, you are abusing that privilege and - as anyone here will see - you are getting drubbed because your understanding of history is tainted by a perverse bias. Here's an idea....stop holding onto this like it's your first-born and you yourself might learn something.

I think we would all benefit from the experience. Real History Man (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What a bizarre rant. You need to read and reread WP:Verifiability until you understand it. Additionally, WP:TRUTH clearly explains the core reason you're having so much difficulty. (Hohum ^@) 18:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre and wonderfully factual. I see not one reference to say that Cpl. Fleet shot Giachino. Not one reference to say that 90% or more of this actually happened the way it is set out. A helpful Wiki editor might say something helpful or realise that maybe there's more to it, maybe we should help this guy...none of it. And I am forced to question the validity of so many things on this page for which there is not one reference. Take the example of Cpl. Gordon Fleet (the record breaker 8,000 miles distant) where does the page reference him as having shot Pedro Giachino? Real History Man (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on the above, and on the information in this thread on AN/I, I have removed from this article the information that is based on Ricky D Phillips' The First Casualty, on the grounds that the author is not an accredited expert on the subject, despite describing himself as a "military historian" (but providing no information on his bona fides), and therefore the book is not a reliable source. (Yes, the edit itself is based on a news story, but the news story only exists because of the claims made by the book. It is not an independently verified source for the verifiability of what is in the book.) The prima facie evidence for this is clear, but if User:Real History Man wishes to dispute it, the place to do so is on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

[5] Another press report, the Mail so not considered a reliable source. WCM_email 07:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

[6] And now the Sun. WCM_email 06:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

[7] And another. WCM_email 07:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#Real History Man, Conflict of Interest editing and Personal Attacks Permanent link to the ANI thread. WCM_email 18:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. 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/20070908175426/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5874 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5874
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010080020/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/NP8901.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/NP8901.html

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) 09:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes in Numbers

I reverted a number of recent changes that changed numbers and added a degree of precision I'm not sure is warranted. Sources vary saying between 25-40 of the FIDF turned out, so the precise figure of 43 seems to not reflect the range of views in the literature. Similarly the RFIP was added, an unarmed civilian police force that took no part in the fighting. I don't think these changes were an improvement to the article. WCM_email 09:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with identifying 3 Port Stanley Police POWs

[url=https://postimg.cc/image/bnzbl0wrv/][img]https://s33.postimg.cc/bnzbl0wrv/5502920627e57eff15e6b.jpg[/img][/url]

The trio were briefly detained as POWs but then let go around midday. Any chance in finding out their ranks and full names? PS.--Vanberkel (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've got the names of the 3 Policemen captured after the surrender in Government House: Ronnie Lamb, Anton Livermore and Terry Peck (recalled from retirement in the hours prior to the Argentine landings).--Vanberkel (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

~~The article currently says there were only 2 full time constables; Superintendent Lamb and an unidentified woman. Plus several special constables appointed the evening before the invasion. Simon Levchenko (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Recently added material

I gave a pretty informative edit summary why I was removing the material recently added. So I am rather unsure why ‎Vanberkel has simply reverted demanding I start a talk page discussion, when WP:BRD would suggest that he does so (and without reverting). I'll expand on my edit summary by pointing out this is WP:FRINGE material in relation to the main subject, in that the FIDF did not take part in any offensive action and are little more than a footnote and as such the WP:DUE coverage would be limited. Given recent edits by that editor, I'm rather suspicious that these edits seem designed to give a rather distorted picture of the battle implying that the 2,500 Argentine troops faced rather more than the 57 Royal Marines and 22 Royal Navy sailors they attacked. WCM_email 01:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Roger 8 Roger In relation to the edits you disputed, I do not see how the information I added would've supplanted any of that which is still there. Simon Levchenko (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not disputing any of the detail you added. What I disagreed with was that you were putting too much detail into the infobox where it does not belong. Infoboxes are for short summaries of what is below see here, as in the link I gave before. The infobox in this article is already too cluttered and in need of thinning out without adding any more detail. Why not put your information into the body of the article where it belongs? It would also be useful to explain any additions or changes, especially when changing numbers, so that other editors can see you are not vandalising the site. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I presume you might be referring to the sentences in the infobox. I revise them to allow for a more succinct summary. Simon Levchenko (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox overload and flag icons

Here [8] is a discussion about the over use of flag icons. Can anyone think of a valid reason for keeping flags in the infobox? If not I will remove them. I think there is also a good case to be made for removing much of the finer detail of the engagement. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Killed and wounded

Can we have a section which sums up the number of people killed and wounded in this invasion? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ARASantísimaTrinidadD-2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ARASantísimaTrinidadD-2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)