Talk:Falklands War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falklands War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / South America This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force South American military history task force British Overseas Territories (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Argentina Top‑importance Argentina portal 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Top‑importance United Kingdom portal 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. South America: Falklands High‑importance Latin America portal 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as High-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms 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 was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept November 20, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 19, 2004, March 19, 2005, April 2, 2007, June 14, 2008, June 14, 2010, June 14, 2011, and June 14, 2014. Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Guilherme Fians (16 September 2025). "Wikipedia: Editing the narrative". Chartered Institute of Linguists. Retrieved 27 September 2025. Another fascinating case is Wikipedia's coverage of the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War. While the article in English refers to an 'Argentine invasion', the Spanish page speaks of a 'British occupation'.

Date

Presently it says this:

Date	2 April – 14 June 1982 (2 months, 1 week and 5 days)
Location	Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Result	British victory

According to the House of Lords libraryit ended in a ceasefire,and according to oxford dictionary a ceasefire is only a Temporary suspension of hostilities,relations were normalised on July 14 1999 between the 2 countries wich was made possible by delegations on 19 October 1989 and 15 February 1990, UnsungHistory (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is "defuze" a correct spelling?

in the first paragraph of the section, "Air Attacks", it says:

"In the landing zone, the limitations of the British ships' anti-aircraft defences were demonstrated in the sinking of HMS Ardent on 21 May which was hit by nine bombs,[126] and HMS Antelope on 24 May when attempts to defuze unexploded bombs failed.[127] Out at sea with the carrier battle group, MV Atlantic Conveyor...."

Is this deliberate? Google seems to recognize this spelling of the word "defuse", but Ive never heard of it. INSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has come up before although I can't remember where. I too think it odd and without a good reason not to I would use defuse not defuze. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come up before but can't remember where.

I wrote a long explanation of why fuse in, "Six better fuses and we would have lost" was the correct spelling - (1) it was the spelling actually used, (2) no need for "sic" as it is a correct spelling for an explosive device.

The explanation has been deleted and someone changed "fuses" to fuzes" which is not correct.

Perhaps this is where it came up before? 87.114.87.45 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary:fuse, which says:

Professional publications about explosives and munitions distinguish the fuse and fuze spellings. The latter is preferred for the sense of “mechanism that ignites the charge”

Note that Wikipedia has articles Fuse (explosives) for "a simple pyrotechnic initiating device, like the cord on a firecracker", and Fuze for "a device that detonates a munition's explosive material under specified conditions". However, both articles give the alternative spelling.

So it seems that in this particular case, "fuze" would be more specific technically, but "fuse" would not be wrong in general usage.

Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because you are young or American or both and inured to American spellings. If you browse the history of this talk page you will see an extended treatise on whether "Six better fuzes and and we would have lost" and "Six better fuses... etc" was the correct quotation. That will give you the reason why spellings with "z" are generally used over spellings with "s" in British military service writing ("z" spellings occurring before "s" spellings in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Fuse" is in fact the correct British spelling - the "s" spelling, for once, appearing before the "z" spelling in the OED. So "defuse" would be the correct British way to make zafe an unexploded munition. ~2025-35513-27 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is incorrect (born 1958 in London and lived thereabouts my whole life). See Minutes of Proceedings of The Royal Artillery Institution (1893) p. 472, or Regulations for the Equipment of the Army: Part 2, War Office (1910), p. 27, and also Sir Martin Farndale, History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery: Anti-aircraft Artillery 1915-1955 (1986) p. 15. All these British military sources and many others use "fuze". Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there so much disparity between the Spanish text and the English text?

It would be a good idea to rewrite the given information about this conflict as objective and factional as possible, correcting both texts English and Spanish. In order to avoid confusion and misinformation to readers. 64.140.144.49 (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The English and Spanish language Wikipedias are separate, and don't need to agree with each other. The Spanish language Wikipedia's coverage of the Falklands War is likely dominated by Argentines. The general consensus in the literature is that Argentine sources need to be used with care as they often contain myths. Many English language sources going back to the 1980s have drawn on interviews with Argentine veterans and consulted Spanish language sources. I think that it's fair to say that there aren't any definitive histories of the war at present though. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article [1] talks about such differences in general. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What just happened

I came into the article, and I saw a slight error in starting a sentence: a paragraph started with space, which caused text to be pixelated and encased inside a box. I corrected it, but then I realized that the entire lede was written as if it were a history of the archipelago, instead of an introduction to a page describing a war. I can't find a way to revert it back to a previous edit, can somebody look into it, please? GabMen20 (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this edit] it seems.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]