Talk:Falklands War

Ridley's reception in parliament

@user:Anonymous Libertarian This relates to today's edit. The point of the text is that Ridley got a drumming in the house for being involved in any discussions that involved sovereignty, as view stirred up by a well-organised pro-islander lobby group. That is why the proposal never went anywhere. The point of the part about the lease is that even without that vehement anti-Argentine lobby, Ridley's proposal would not have succeeded because more moderate members of parliament would not have accepted a ten year lease back period anyway. The two points are not directly connected which is why I think the second one is, correctly, in parentheses. I don't have the source to-hand though to double check. Others might be able to comment here. However, I think the way it is written isn't clear and should be altered. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

For context, here is how the paragraph was worded before I made that edit:

Long standing original version -

"In 1980, a new UK Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Ridley, went to the Falklands trying to sell the islanders the benefits of a leaseback scheme, which met with strong opposition from the islanders. On his return to London in December 1980, he reported to parliament but was viciously attacked at what was seen as a sellout. (It was unlikely that leaseback could have succeeded since the British had sought a long-term lease of 99 years, whereas Argentina was pressing for a much shorter period of only ten years.) At a private committee meeting that evening, it was reported that Ridley said: "If we don't do something, they will invade. And there is nothing we could do."[14]"

New version by User talk:Anonymous Libertarian -

"In 1980, a new UK Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Ridley, went to the Falklands trying to sell the islanders the benefits of a leaseback scheme, which met with strong opposition from the islanders. On his return to London in December 1980, he reported to parliament but was viciously attacked at what was seen as a sellout. It was unlikely that leaseback could have succeeded since the British had sought a long-term lease of 99 years, whereas Argentina was pressing for a much shorter period of only ten years. At a private committee meeting that evening, it was reported that Ridley said: "If we don't do something, they will invade. And there is nothing we could do."[14]" Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The best way to convey that two points are not directly connected to each other is going to be putting them in separate sentences (or even separate paragraphs if necessary). I don't see how you would need to take an entire sentence (that is already a complete sentence by itself), put the whole thing into parathesis, and then not have a period afterwards, which basically turns the last sentence in the paragraph into a runoff sentence (since there is no period in between what is in parenthesis and the last sentence in the paragraph, which technically makes the whole thing into one sentence) and confuses the reader.

Now that I have read and thought about what you were saying, it does makes sense how the parenthesis would provide some sort of separation between the two ideas, but it isn't inherently obvious to the reader unless they actually read the talk page and took a look at your comment. If you really want to emphasize that those two points are separate from each other, it is much better to just add some of that context in yourself using some credible sources, rather than simply adding parenthesis around what is already a complete sentence. That is why I still believe that I did the right thing when I initially made that edit. As per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy, I'll wait to see how this discussion goes before I consider making any further changes to that part of the article. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've looked again at the two versions. Your version implies the the intent of this paragraph was that parliament did not agree to a ten year leaseback. It would not have agreed to that for sure, and is worth a side mention which we do in parantheses, but that is not the intent of the paragraph. The intent of this paragrapgh is the well organised lobby group that objected to parliament handing over British citizens to a foreign power against their will. You should also look at the source which also makes that point. The original version reflects what the source says, whereas your version doesn't. I really cannot see how your version is better. Others might give an opinion here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding based on this discussion is that my intention is to fix the grammatical structure by removing the parenthesis while your intention is to maintain the subtle meaning that is created by the parenthesis. Rather than simply trying to justify the removal of the parenthesis, I think it would be much better to propose an alternative solution.

Changing as little as possible from the current version, this is what a better edited version could potentially look like:

In 1980, a new UK Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Ridley, went to the Falklands trying to sell the islanders the benefits of a leaseback scheme, which met with strong opposition from the islanders. On his return to London in December 1980, he reported to parliament but was viciously attacked at what was seen as a sellout. Even without all of that lobbying, it was unlikely that leaseback idea would have progressed further anyway since the British had sought a long-term lease of 99 years, whereas Argentina was pressing for a much shorter period of only ten years. At a private committee meeting that evening, it was reported that Ridley said: "If we don't do something, they will invade. And there is nothing we could do."[14]

I also asked ChatGPT as well, by giving it this talk page discussion and also the version of the paragraph that is currently standing as a prompt, and ChatGPT suggested this revised version of the paragraph in its response:

In 1980, a new UK Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Ridley, went to the Falklands to promote a leaseback scheme, which was met with strong opposition from the islanders. On his return to London in December 1980, Ridley reported to parliament but faced intense criticism for what was seen as a sellout. While the political opposition to handing over sovereignty was the primary reason for the failure of the proposal, it was also unlikely that leaseback could have succeeded due to disagreements over the lease period: Britain sought a long-term lease of 99 years, whereas Argentina wanted a much shorter period of only ten years. At a private committee meeting that evening, Ridley reportedly warned, "If we don't do something, they will invade. And there is nothing we could do."

It also made a bunch of other edits as well in addition to removing the parenthesis, so taking ChatGPT's suggestion (if we decide to do that) doesn't necessarily have to be copying and pasting in the paragraph word for word (unless you would prefer to do that). Rather, it could be implementing its suggested wording for replacing what is currently in parenthesis.

These are just two possible ideas on how we could edit the paragraph to remove the unnecessary parenthesis (and fix the grammatical issues that come with it) while still keeping the intended meaning intact. What do you think? Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like one of those pointless talk page disagreements. Let's be clear - there is nothing wrong with the long standing version, in meaning or grammar. It was written after careful reading by me of Freedman's source which it reflects. If you want it changed I suggest you first refer to the source. I normally avoid words like 'viciously' but in this case I think it is justified because that is how it is described in the source (which I haven't got in front of me). This ChatGP thing might be fine for helping out an editor who is stuck for words but that is about all - Wikipedia is ultimately written by people, not machines. In any case, did ChatGP first read the source? Once again, there is nothing wrong with the long standing version. If you want to improve this article, there is plenty to do, much more that altering sentences because of a perceived error of grammar. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not just merely a perceived error though. I think it would be pretty obvious that an entire stand alone sentence should not be placed into parenthesis. I understand that you like having the long standing version, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not always to keep the long standing version. The purpose of Wikipedia is to improve upon those words and make them better.

It should be pretty easy to remove the parenthesis and keep the same meaning. As you requested, I did take a look at the source itself. To view the source material, I went ahead and created an account with archive.org. Archive.org then lets you view the book itself by "borrowing" it for free. Then I turned to page 53, which is what the paragraph cites, and looked at both pages 52 and 53, which covers all the necessary material for this paragraph. You could also do the same thing to view the source material if you want.

In the source material, it says that Ridley suggested a lease of 99 years (which was how Hong Kong was leased) when he was pressed on length of the lease, while the Argentinians were thinking of 30 years. Then the source material said, "perhaps there could be a compromise on fifty". The 99 years was just the number that Ridley gave when he was pressed on the specifics of the negotiations, so it wasn't necessarily the number that the UK was specifically looking for. I also don't see anything in the source material about the proposal being rejected because of the length of the lease. All Ridley did was that the government was "searching for a solution" and that a "leaseback was being considered". It was in response to this that Ridley then got "a drubbing from all sides of the house". To reiterate, all of this came from this source.

Usually, I edit for grammar only and not for content. After all, what matters is the meaning that is being conveyed, so if two different versions of it convey the same meaning but one is more grammatically correct, it obviously makes sense to go with what is more grammatically correct. My original edit seemed to have changed the meaning slightly, so I suggested other possible options that would still preserve the same meaning while fixing the grammatical error. However, I can definitely do much better than just correcting for grammar while strictly maintaining the same meaning. I can go further than that and actually rewrite the paragraph to not only fix the issues with grammar and style, but also to make it best reflect the actual source material itself.

This is what my rewritten version looks like as of right now:

In 1980, a new UK Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Ridley, went to the Falklands trying to sell the islanders the benefits of a leaseback scheme, which was met with strong opposition from the islanders. When asked about the length of the lease, Ridley suggested 99 years, which was how long Hong Kong was leased to the UK; however, Argentina wanted it to be 30 years. On his return to London in December 1980, he reported to the House of Commons to say that he was considering a leaseback; however, he was viciously attacked at what was seen as a sellout by MPs of both parties, to the point were The Times reported, "Seldom can a minister have had such a drubbing from all sides of the house". At a private committee meeting that evening, it was reported that Ridley said: "If we don't do something, they will invade. And there is nothing we could do."[14]

This new version I wrote is based on the actual source material itself, including many direct quotes from pages 52 and 53. Since both pages are being used, the citation would also then be updated to say that both pages of the book are being used. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this new proposed version that I made (other editors are also free to chime in as well if they have any feedback they want to provide). If there are no objections to this new version, I will go ahead and make the proposed change. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You should not change anything without consensus here, which you currently do not have. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why I said, "if there are no objections", to make sure that there is consensus first before making any changes. If you do have objections, then you should explain what those objections are. Which part of my proposal do you disagree with and why do you disagree with it? Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Since both of us mentioned having others give an opinion in this discussion, I think we can both agree that a third opinion would definitely be very useful. For that reason, I went ahead and requested a third opinion on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: The original version of the article seems preferable to me. Per MOS:B&P, it is perfectly reasonable for entire sentences to be enclosed by brackets. The purpose of brackets is to add additional information without which the prose still makes sense—the original version accomplishes this well. All provided alternatives seem unnecessarily clunky, and seem to be based on the assumption that readers would find the punctuation used confusing, but as this is quite basic, I think we should be fine on that count. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. I don't see anything in the policy page that explicitly states that it is okay to have entire sentences to be enclosed by parenthesis, but since the policy page does explicitly tell you how to do formatting in cases where an entire sentence is in within brackets, it would be safe to assume that Wikipedia policy does indeed allow for this.

On an intuitive basis, the formatting just seemed wrong to me, which is why we had the discussion. Had I been given a link to the specific policy earlier, most of the discussion wouldn't have taken place. It still probably isn't ideal to have it formatted the way it is, so someone else could come in at some point in the future and replace it with a better version if they can think of something that is actually better given the sources. As of right now though, the original version shall stand.

It might still be a good idea to replace the 10 years with the 30 years though. That is an actual factual point that differs between the original source material and the paragraph is written on Wikipedia. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As it is a minor factual edit (and seeing no objections on the talk page), I decided to go ahead and make that change, replacing "ten" with "thirty" to better reflect the source material but keeping everything else the same. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I cannot remember where ten years came from but if Freedman says thirty so be it. However, without checking, I thought he mentions both numbers. The source would have to be read more thoroughly than just taking out one sentence in isolation, although I'm not saying you have done that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Modern Latin America

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 18 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Muskratman99 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Muskratman99 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)