This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 58.147.52.66(talk) at 03:51, 10 December 2009(→Decoy: damage to Arrow's countermeasure sled is mentioned in the sole current reference to this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:51, 10 December 2009 by 58.147.52.66(talk)(→Decoy: damage to Arrow's countermeasure sled is mentioned in the sole current reference to this article)
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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
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.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
Astrotrain, please stop the sistematic removal of every single reference to the name Malvinas from every single article. In the context of a submarine of the Argentine fleat that participated of the Falkland war, it is imperative to have a reference to the Spanish word. A reader not completelly in the subject might ignore the Spanish name, what might prevent him from reaching more information say, while searching the internet. This is not an article about something that concerns only to the islands, but much more to Argentina, where Spanish is the official name, and where the islands are known as Malvinas. Thus, a simple reference of the Spanish name together with the English one is not only acceptable, but necesary. Mariano(t/c) 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your do not answer to the motives I give to keep the Spanish name. Are you going to claim then that San Luis and Santa Fe should be also translated because it is in Spanish?? Please give solid reasons before changing the original version. Mariano(t/c) 15:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no offical English name for the ships- so of course not. However the Falklands War, while known as the Guerra de las Malvinas (or whatever) in Spanish, is known as the Falklands War in English, and by no other name. We do not put in Spanish translations for other English terms in the article I note. It doesn't matter what your motives are- it is clearly wrong. Astrotrain15:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With good will any dispute can be solved. I fear you were each standing too close to the issue. It happens to us all. When there is a dispute such as this a decent and encyclopaedic compromise usually works :) Fiddle Faddle09:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The insistance on the use of the word Malvinas is in support a territorial claim, which is going nowhere. The term is certainly used in Argentina for and by countries which support illogical irredentism, like Spain - however its not a valid alternative name because the people of the Falkland islands reject its use totally. The use of foreign language names is always questionable, and in the case of 'Las Malvinas' offensive. I note a story about the Falkland Islands I wrote picked up by an Argentine newspaper simply replaced the name and did not give any alternative. And that was in their English edition. --Gibnews
Man, we've discussed this a thousand times. Malvinas is way older than the Falklands War, and has been used by countries supporting and not supporting the Argentine claim; it's just the Spanish name, derivated from the French one. As in any territory that has been occupied by other nations, former names or names in those other languages are to be provided. Mariano(t/c) 09:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, you would not dictate to the Chinese that their capital is called Peking, or that the Indians should call Mumbai something else. The Falkland Islands are named that because they are British and the people who live there use that name and no other. This is the English language wikipedia and although it may explain curiosities, if you went to the Spanish language version and renamed Espana with its 'correct' English name it would not last long. Give it a rest here. --Gibnews
Yours examples of Pekin and Mumbai are not valid because there is not a dispute over them. There are not british but under british administration' as UN said and falklands could be see offensive too by some of the world s half population that called them Malvinas or Malouines (french). Anyway I like yours ISO solution. Jor7013:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 'dispute' is a paper tiger, used to distract attention from more immediate issues. However I note the UN C24 use the form Falkland Islands (Malvinas) which is the ISO designation and on this occasion it may defuse the situation. That some people call the territory that is a matter of fact however wrong that is, and the battle needs to be taken to international organisations rather than here. --Gibnews
As of 2006, I dont know what you mean with more immediate issues. As is written in the Argentine Constitution the claim will never end. The World (even the US!) states them as Administered by UK, claimed by Argentina but I agree that we cannot do much more here and the ISO solution is appropiate, helping people to find not only british sources Jor7014:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant- in English they are always refered to as the Falkland Islands, and the war as the Falklands War. Of course the Falkland Islands article has a whole section to deal with the naming issue, as appropiate. But it is not appropiate to list the fact that they are referred to as the Malvinas in each and every article that mentions the Islands. What is so special about the ARA San Luis article that requires that badly written footnote? Astrotrain15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that is relevant is that it is causing a dispute. So, in order to solve the dispute an encyclopaedic compromise is needed. The article is a free standing article. Therefore solving the naming issue in it is wholly relevant. Unilaterally removing it may be bold, but it is not appropriate. Let's not get another revert war started over this. phrase it better by all means, but note the building consensus here, please. Fiddle Faddle15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make any sense! That is enough reason to remove. Why confuse people when they can go to the Falkland Islands page and read the whole story behind the naming issue? What is so special about this page that requires the footnote? Astrotrain15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It requires something, and a footnote, especially in smaller font, is an excellent, encyclopaedic, NPOV, and insignificant way of achieving it. How do I know it requires something? Because I an English, because I dislike the Argentine claim to sovereignty, and dislike unlawful invasions. But I accept that one way of keeping the peace is to allow those who need to see the name "Malvinas" present and explained in a flat manner. And I know it to be necessary because we would not otherwise be discussing it instead of rewording a rather poorly worded article. The task is to write encyclopaedic articles, not to get involved with POV stuff. Fiddle Faddle15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's only being added because the sour faced argies/argie lovers on here have got a serious axe to grind, with anyone who refers to it by it's correct name in the context of ENGLISH language wikipedia, the Spanish language ARA San Luis article can have Malvinas coming out of its arsehole but here as you can tell it is reffered to as the Falklands, as stated; the article isn't Falklands/Malvinas war it's Falklands war. Notice how something like the P-80 Shooting Star article just says Korean War, it doesn't say Korean War / 조국해방전쟁; 祖國解放戰爭 / 한국전쟁; 韓國戰爭 / 朝鲜战争; 朝鮮戰爭, wind your fucking necks in. King nothing15:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil- there is no need for that rant. Although there is a disagreement, state your argument rationally, rather than simply attacking others. Astrotrain15:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the necesity of a refence to the Malvinas name within the article even though it is not an article about the islands itself, I think it provides crucial information to the reader that might want to search more information about the topic (in this case a battleship). Otherwise, he/she might not be able to find relevant articles from Argentine sources, leaving him/her with only a small sub-set of the existing articles on the net he/she might be interested to read. The compromise of a small-font footnote seams to me both harmless and appropiate. Mariano(t/c) 06:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is complete rubbish. If someone wanted to search for more information and wanted an Argentine source, they would need to be able to speak Spanish, and would obviously aready know about the Malvinas name. Astrotrain16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with the current footnote, although anyone capable of reading Argentine Sources probably knows the Falkland Islands are exclusively called Malvinas by Argentina.
Gibraltar was an interesting place to follow the conflict as we had both sides presented via the BBC and TVE. Today its simply a matter of chosing a satellite TV channel and one can watch whatever, but then we got the same bit of film shown repeatedly. The world changes, at least in some ways. --Gibnews
I think the footnote is the perfect place for it. This is the EN Wiki after all and the footnote is a good way of mentioning the name with the proper preponderance in the English world. Sebastian KesselTalk20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decoy
Noted fact tag by Dagosnavy, as far as I'm aware the problems that ARA San Luis had with both torpedoes and Fire Control System meant that it was unable to engage. There was no need to decoy torpedoes. Justintalk11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the reference Submarine Operations during the Falklands War - Lt Cdr Steven R. Harper USN, "Later, when the Arrow was retrieving her towed countermeasure 'it was damaged -- conclusive proof the the British electronic countermeasures had outwitted the SST-4's homing device.'4".[page 11] Citation 4 (chapter 5) of that reference, itself a US Naval War College paper, is "Edwyn Gray -- The Devil's Device: Robert Whitehead and the History of the Torpedo -- (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1991), p. 240."
The reference makes no mention of one torpedo not leaving the tube during the Arrow attack, but it does suggest that, "There is also evidence that the STS-4 torpedoes were not properly prepared in the torpedo room before loading the weapons in the torpedo tubes. This error did not allow the torpedoes to arm themselves after time of fire.", and "... and the damage, but not destruction, to Arrow's countermeasure sled are consistent with this thesis.", but gives no reference for this assumption. -- 58.147.52.66 (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
