Talk:Falklands War

• /Archive01
• /Archive02
• /Archive03
• /Archive04
• /Archive05
• /Archive06
• /Archive07
• /Archive08

Archived 30/06/08

Ryan4314 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo Montage

Purely for information, I have been informed on my talk page [1], that as a result of my dispute with Fut.Perf. over the deletion of the image Image:HMS Conqueror (S48).jpg see here, he has now decided that the Photo Montage I created also fails the fair use rationale because of the use of the image of HMS Antelope. Justin talk 08:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had gone for all non-free images in it? If not, then yep, I have to say that I probably agree with him on that. Narson (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The picture of the Antelope is not free. But I do think that, given his involvement, Future Perfect should go through process on this. Announcing Image will be gone in 48h. on a user talk page without even tagging the image is inappropriate in my view, whatever the reasons for deleting. Pfainuk talk 09:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a perfectly process-conformant speedy deletion after notification. I even went to the trouble notifying the uploader with a friendly personal message instead of a mere tag. What else do you want? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Antelope is Crown Copyright, free for non-commercial use but doesn't conform to GFDL. It was included because of its iconic status and there is no none free equivalent. Its one of those images that you just can't represent the Falklands War without. I took advice before including it, the advice indicated that there was a fair use rationale.

And purely as a comment, the edit summary on my talk page did not seem very friendly to me. Justin talk 09:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What was unfriendly about a message with edit summary "Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg", and beginning, "Sorry to bother you with this spin-off of our discussion..."? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked (but given that Pfainuk had already mentioned it, it seemed obvious) I referred to the edit summary Image will be gone in 48h which I did take to be unfriendly. Justin talk 10:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'd agree that perhaps FutPer should consider how it looks with him getting involved, considering other goings on, I do agree with him still. There are plenty of iconic images, I think, that we can use freely for a montage. For example, do we have free images of the old Ark Royal? Or Harriers? Or perhaps one of the sunk vessels? Heck, even a free image of the Invincible would be interesting considering the claims of its sinking. Narson (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally, items to be speedy deleted are tagged with the justification for speedy deletion. This was not. And I don't actually see which of the CSD you contend this meets. Fair use is claimed, so I9 is out. Under I7, the time limit is 7 days, not 48 hours, and in any case the point of contention is surely NFCC 1, which is specifically excluded from I7. Those are the two that could be claimed, so far as I can see. It doesn't meet any of the other image criteria or the general criteria. So, so far as I can see, while it may meet I7 (a debatable point), you're not putting it through the process described there. Note that I actually agree that it probably doesn't meet NFCC 1.

In any case, I am concerned that you (FPAS) may be too involved at this point. If it meets CSD, then I'm sure another admin will come to the same decision. Pfainuk talk 10:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording of those CSD conditions must have been messed up since the last time I looked. You may be right that as far as it's replaceability it would point to 7d instead of 48h. But it doesn't matter, really, because both notification periods are only meant to give the uploaders time to become aware of the issue and raise their response. As this has happened now, I could actually go ahead and delete right away, the notification and waiting time has already served its purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some free images and as I've still got the original art work I can probably create something similar. There aren't many free images that convey as much as the iconic image of the Antelope. It was carefully considered, indeed agonised over, when we put it together and included for that very reason. If process is followed and it ends up deleted I guess I'll have to create something slightly different but it won't be as balanced or as informative as the current one. Justin talk 10:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just reread it, I made a mistake on the time limit. But NFCC 1 is specifically not allowed as part of CSD: Non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criteria 1 or 8) may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader (emphasis mine).

To Justin, yes I agree. That photo clearly demonstrates the "fighting war" aspect of this quite well. And I can't think of a good free replacement - it's awkward because Argentine photos (generally of Argentine subjects) are generally Wiki-free, while British ones tend to be Crown Copyright. But I think it could be done. Not quite as well, maybe, but it could be done. It's not like replacing the Conqueror image with a picture of a partially-obscured decommissioned hull. Pfainuk talk 10:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, however, I'd still prefer to go through the process of deletion review by an uninvolved admin to confirm that. And I most strongly object to the suggestion that I've had an adequate chance to make a response, I was waiting for a deletion nomination to do that. I have not provided a response as yet and that would be an abuse of process yet again. Justin talk 11:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be tagged for IFD or speedy, and if it is to be deleted another admin should do the deletion. If it's as clear as Future Perfect makes out then there is no reason not to rely on the judgement of an uninvolved admin. Pfainuk talk 11:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE

OK I've updated it with entirely free images. If anyone comes up with a better arrangement I've kept all the original artwork so I can swap it around. Justin talk 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [2]. Cla68 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sinking of HMS Sheffield

It states that "two Dassault Super Étendards were launched ... each armed with a single Exocet AM.39 missile. Then: "The first missile missed HMS Yarmouth" 1 Missle, "Sheffield was struck amidships" 2 Missles, The other missile splashed into the sea half a mile off her port beam 3 Missles???? If two planes each with 1 Missle, how are there 3 Missles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.35.45 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Because missiles that miss still continue on. I think the first missile missed Yarmouth and crashed into Sheffield. Narson (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No the poster is mistaken, Sheffield was hit by a single missile, the other was decoyed by chaff from Yarmouth and splashed into the sea. Only two missiles. Atlantic Conveyor was the only ship hit by two missiles as she didn't have decoy systems and was too large for decoys to be effective. Justin talk 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That section needs a rewrite, the foot notes on Sheffield clearly show two missles (one hit and one miss), so either the missle missed Yarmouth and struck Sheffield or was the second missle that missed, but from article it is hard not clear and as I posted reads as three missles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.113.28 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Narson (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this M.O.D. source, it was Glasgow that fired chaff, but there is no record of it producing any effect (except the trivial observation that Glasgow herself wasn't hit). Yarmouth was on the opposite side of Glasgow. The report is unequivocal that two missiles were fired. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thinK I could see what they meant and have added a clarification. I was under the impression Yarmouth also fired chaff as well. Justin talk 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed from Yarmouths War Diary that she fired chaff as well causing missile to miss [3]. Justin talk 22:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When the war began

I'm not sure about a sentence that appears in the second paragraph of the intro that is as follows:

"The war was triggered by the occupation of South Georgia by Argentina on 19 March 1982 followed by the occupation of the Falklands, and ended when Argentina surrendered on 14 June 1982."

The South Georgia thing was an attempt to occupy South Georgia while it was abandoned by the British for the winter, where some Argentine marines were snuck in as salvage workers. Freedman beleives, from the official history, that if the Argentines had not acted suspiciously the British would not have discovered the move until they returned after the winter. However, the Argentine invasion did not happen until 2 April 1982 and caught the British unawares. My point is that if the war was triggered on 19 March 1982 then why did it take another fortnight for the action to commence, and the rallying of the Task Force and the jingoistic newspaper headlines to appear and other such stuff. The Argentines were not locked into an invasion after the South Georgia thing was discovered, and if the April invasion had not occured then the March action would today be dismissed as optimistic shenanigans. And if South Georgia was "occupied" on 19 March, why did the Argentines invade the islands again after they had taken the Falklands? The article should reflect that the March endevour was a related but seperate episode that merely demonstrated that the Argentines were getting titchy, but in no way did it imply that they were about to launch a full scale invasion to occupy the Falklands and her dependencies. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Not quite, have you read "Signals of War" by Freedman and Gamba-Stonehouse? The Argentines mis-interpreted British intentions over South Georgia and moved up the invasion ahead of the deployment of an SSN. Anaya initiated Project Alpha after promising to call it off and that precipitated the crisis. I have a personal belief that was deliberate on his part to manufacture an incident in order to provide a pretext for invading the Falklands. Justin talk 08:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)