Talk:Falklands War

Mobilization of the Federal Penitentiary Service during the war

Members of Argentina's Federal Penitentiary Service were mobilized when the war started. They were organized into an infantry company and attached to the XI Infantry Brigade, and nicknamed "black necks" due to their unique prison guard uniforms which the rest of the army didn't have. During the war they guarded strategic locations in and around Rio Gallegos against potential British commando raids. Would it be OK to mention this in the article, provided I find an acceptable source? I think its an interesting detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Federal_Penitentiary_Service Bob meade (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba for deletion

I have nominated the article Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba, which is related to this topic, for deletion. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba. Kahastok talk 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Wiki Education assignment: Modern Latin America

This article is currently 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)