Jump to content

Talk:ARA General Belgrano/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

Having read the section in Middlebrook's book this morning, I'm slightly concerned that this article appears to be in places a almost word-for-word copy of his book. - Richard Johnston - 11 September 2006

It quotes a number of interviews that were printed from the book, at least one of the quotes could be better attributed. I will ammend that. Megapixie 11:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


I was only a kid when this happened but to this day, I don't understand why anyone would call the sinking of the Belgrano a "controversy". It was war time and any nation at war could sink their opponent's warships any where they want. As for the "peace efforts", I believe the British would settle for nothing less than a full return of the islands, so I could see no compromise there. However, hindsight is always 20/20.

Agreed. I think there should be something in this article pointing out that Great Britain and Argentina were in a de facto state of war at the time, and that in warfare, combat ships of the enemy side are legitimate targets no matter where they are found. user:Jsc1973

Um, this is Wikipedia. It's supposed to present facts in a NPOV manner. The fact of this matter is, that there was a controversy over the sinking at the time. You guys aren't disputing that there was one, are you? You're disputing whether the controversy was justified or not. Which is something completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.

New version of controversy section

who write's UMMM??? fag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.65.7.20 (talk • contribs).


I'm working on a new version of the section which I've put in ARA General Belgrano/controversy. Putting my cards on the table, I think the existing section plays up the controversy without actually addressing it. Also it did not appear to accurately describe the linked interview (I have ammended it). Please take a look before I merge it into the main article. I will probably make edits to tidy it up over the next week or so. Megapixie 13:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have merged in the new version of the section. It's a little rough - so feel free to make changes. But I think it makes the clear point that both sides considered the Belgrano a valid target. And to quote Martin Middlebrook - In my first book about the Falklands War, I described critism of the attack on the Belgrano as "humbug"; I have not changed that opinion. Megapixie 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha

There's a scan of the Sun's front-page article here. [1] It's probably more read about than read. It explicitly states that the Belgrano was not sunk. I am dubious about the claim in the picture caption that later editions were toned down. As far as I know The Sun and other national British newspapers do not have editions; they are distributed all over the country and abroad, it would not be practical. Gotcha is a cricketing term. Airport 1975 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No I agree, this was covered in my *cough* Media Studies A-level, all the sources I read came up with the same Anecdote. That the first edition was printed ‘Gotcha’ which was then withdrawn from later editions by the Editor, right up until The Sun’s owner Rupert Murdoch reversed the editors decision. The ‘final’ edition carried the ‘Gotcha’ headline. I've edited the caption Red7

I disagree. I distinctly remember the front page was changed in later editions to read "Did 1200 Argies Drown?" DWManley

There are Scottish Sun, Scottish mail and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.74 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Number of Dead

This article from the bbc states 368 dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480241.stm

--Mewaqua 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Fight For The Malvinas" states 323 (321 Navy Personnel and 2 Civilians) - In fact it also states that 368 was an early inaccurate figure. I would generally trust it as being the most accurate source, since the author actually interviewed the captain of the Belgrano. Megapixie 12:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Official Argentine Navy site:

--Jor70 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

At What Depth

Maybe it would be interesting to add ARA Belgrano's depth of sinking or other information that relates to it - expeditions to recover parts of the ship or other related information. --213.42.2.28 11:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty deep - 4200 meters of water [3] - The Titanic is at 3800 meters by comparison. Looks like there is a documentary on the "National Geographic Channel" about it. Megapixie 11:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
What is bathymetry to do with anything? The individual sailor of ARA Belgrano did not die 10 percent more than a lost soul of the Titanic. You are dead before you are 5 metres underneath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.74 (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Argentinian Viewpoint for the Controversy section?

I'd be interested to see/hear the Argentinian point of view on this. The article, as it is, seems very much from the British point of view.

I agree. The article is hardly NPOV, by the way. --200.199.195.129 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They view it as a tragedy, Not surprisingly. From what I've heard it was a training ship at the time, the crew were "young men and boys", that made the pain a bit keener.OzoneO 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A training ship sailing towards an enemy fleet in the middle of a shooting war? What does that say about the Junta? 217.7.209.108 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "training ship" implies that Belgrano was an otherwise harmless floating classroom. This is simply not the case. The Belgrano was used for training (it was not a training ship as such, it was simply used in that role).

The Belgrano was sailing away when stuck, but I do agree that a training ship should be nowhere near the theatre of war.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.211.244.99 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 April 2007.

Why is the heading of a ship important? The Belgrano had a rudder, and could therefore sail in any direction it liked, and change that direction quickly and easily.
According to one book I have read, any navy person can tell you that heading can be altered easily. As it has been said, it had a rudder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.74 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The statement "As far as both sides were concerned the shooting war had already begun and there were no chances of a peaceful settlement: the British were not likely to accept anything less than the complete withdrawal of Argentine forces, and Argentina could not withdraw without effectively conceding defeat" is unsourced. It should be either appropriately sourced or removed. Beside this, all Argentine statements are mediated by British authors. There are no Argentine references. Bah. Stammer 18:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, according argentine sources, it is false, due there was hope about the Peru president Peace plan --Jor70 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's better now. Stammer 17:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless the Peru Peace Plan included a clause to the effect of "Argentina must withdraw from the Falklands unilaterally and unconditionally" there was no hope. Any hope in the junta that they could talk their way out and keep the Falklands was fantasy. Argentine sources are useless in gauging the attitude of the British cabinet to the so-called Peru Peace Plan (this would be the same Peru that provided extra Mirage fighters to Argentina, and even volunteered its Air Force for combat missions against the British). The British made their position clear, and their aim in negotiations was to get the Argentines to withdraw from the Falklands.
Frankly the whole „controversy“ is bullshit! It was an Argentinean warship; Argentina was at war with GB. That means any damned Trans Trio 13 warship is fair game no matter where it happens to be. This should be removed or at least described as an example of media hysteria.

The more interesting thing is the total exclusion zone. Sounds like a no-go area for all sorts of ships of all nations, like even neutral merchant ships, doesn´t it. That does not mean some enemy warship can expect to safely sail just outside this zone.Markus Becker02 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your bullshit thoughts are because you do not cleary understand the argentine view. The controversial (at least from the Argentine side) is not mainly due the exclusion zone but about the moment and reasons that decided the sinking: Avoid a peaceful solution at all costs. --Jor70 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, the Argentineans who started an unprovoked war wanted a peaceful solution? Like one that allowed to them to keep the Islands or did the evil Brits sink this warship just at the moment the Argentineans wanted to announce their withdrawal? Now it really sounds like media hysteria!Markus Becker02 12:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the controversy, you see it normal, Argentine view is contrary. Jor70 15:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just copied some sentences about the so-called controversy from the article about the Falklands War that give the readers some information about the political instrumentalisation of the sinking and much needed legal information. Markus Becker02 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but we are showing the 2 views of the controversy in the article, pls respect the Argentine view and re write your lines under British View thks and sorry for any incovenience Jor70 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That was the view of the Belgrano´s Captain and an explanation of the legal situation. Both of it is very important to put the Argentine view -which is no longer upheld by the Argentine government- into perspective and neither is British View.Markus Becker02 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jor70, please stop removing information about the Argentinian position. Especially if it is coming from argentinian scources itself.Markus Becker02 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So why is Jor70 accused of removing sections reflecting the view of the Argentine position?
I think you dont understand the point here, the heading and the position are simply facts and are not the main cause of the controversy as I already said, although I still not found any OFFICIAL ARGENTINE SOURCE saying that the heading wasnt important under international law. About the government dropped the claim, in fact was not the government but a private case, was a politcal decission.

This paragraph (the argentine position) is intended to show just that, you cannot cut the sentence writing between BUT THIS is .... because you are adding an external view. Please write what you want under the British View. Jor70 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In order to make an informed judgement about the Argentinian position the reader needs to know what the rules of war have to say about it.Markus Becker02 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My english it not very good, but did you understand me ? One side position of the controversy cannot be filled with views of the other part, being wrong or not. You need to respect the other side. PLease, for n times, post your thought under the BRitish view. The ocassional reader would read that too.Jor70 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I have created a new section called legal situation and to satisfy you I have put the current position of your government under Later political controversy. I hope that is acceptable to you.Markus Becker02 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok with the section, although we need a reference about that of the heading. Also, the thought of Captain Bonzo I dont think qualify as a Legal View and you already have it duplicate under the British View section . And I realize now, that if we had a Legal section we should add the case of private argentines in La Haye later turn down by the gov . Jor70 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The part about "heading" simply means if two nations are at war the other side´s warships can be attacked no matter where they are. Furthermore the captain of a warship should know the rules of warfare. After all, that is part of his job. If it´s anready under british view, it should be removed, the guy is no Brit.Markus Becker02 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time, as a neutral party, the US press expressed the opinion that it was a foul, or a cheap shot, for a British nuclear submarine to sink a 1938 cruiser which was outside the declared exclusion zone and headed away from it, and which had not even the sonar to detect a submarine. Edison 05:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean it was a disproportionate use of superior technology against a "fleeing" enemy? Nick Cooper 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, but the worst things are: the Belgrano, at the time of the sinking, wasnt in a position to affect anyway the task force, and 2nd: the Argentine Junta was seriously considering accepting the Peru peace negotiation. Jor70 14:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Except that 1) it appeared to be part of a developing pincer movement, and 2) the British didn't know that. Not being confrontational, but the British weren't exactly in the mood to being giving the Junta the benefit of the doubt at the time. Nick Cooper
And THAT Boys and girls is why you should read your oponent's argument before replying... but then it was unsporting to use a superior web-browser (or some such). So the Americans, characterised by sending in hundreds of thousands of troops, lazer guided bombs from UAVs, and cruise missiles, against targets that have mere rifles, think that was unfair... Strewth we must have been naughty!
Arguably it would have been fairer if HMS Belfast had been requisitioned and pushed back into service, I mean that's what they did with Hermes, or if the subs had periodically resurfaced for air. Fair play goes out of the window when an invading force turns up on your doorstep.194.129.249.111 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
1) The British were aware of the withdrawl orders of the Argentine Fleet (Chileans recognized given ARA radio codes to them) 2) Peru President was in an open negotiation with both Uk and Arg. Jor70 23:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
2) There is a difference between negotiations and actual truce. 1) The attack on Belgrano was planned over the course of hours, had it genuinely been withdrawing it would have been a long way from the exclusion zone by then! The argentines had already invaded, and had shown remarkable contempt for the Haig series of negotiations. (Crying "Peace" is just as dangerous as Crying "Wolf") 194.129.249.111 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
How is it that the statements by Hector Bonzo and the Argentine government that the attack was legal and that the British were acting within their rights is listed as part of the 'British' point of view? What is this 'Reconquista' website? Sure, it has a .gov.ar address, but it does not appear to be a central government website - these things need explaining. Also, didn't Hector Bonzo also say that if he had sighted HMS Trafalgar he would have attacked it? Seem to remember that being in the book "Battle For The Malvinas". 138.37.250.195 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact the website quoted seems to be simply the website of the municipal government of the city of Reconquista, I am going to delete the quote until someone can find an actual central government website that gives these opinions 138.37.250.195 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Did someone post the official opinions of an individual municipal. As if they run Embassies of their own.

There appears to be some confusion regarding "exclusion zone" and I think is causing the problems. It would appear the UK government meant the exlusion zone to mean any ship entering was liable to be destroyed, whereas some of the editors here have taken it to mean anything outside is safe. Anyone have a good source for a legal basing of the exclusion zone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the exclusion zone was largely to warn general shipping (Argentine ships in particular) and Argentine warships attempting to resupply Argentine forces would be liable to attack. The position of Argentine warships was clarified on April 23 when the UK Government warned Argentina that any warship threatening the task force would be liable to attack without warning. This clarified that even outside of the exclusion zone, warships were liable to be attacked; Argentine officers have admitted that they understood this all too well.
There is also a great deal of confusion over the difference between Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Conflict. The LOAC is a set of conventions, treaties and precedent that governs the behaviour of combatants in a conflict - the LOAC are a set of rules of conduct that cannot be changed. Rules of Engagement set out how the LOAC is to be applied and any constraints on the freedom of action within the LOAC. The difference between the two is that political constraints on RoE limit the action of a commander but if circumstances change RoE can be changed to meet immediate needs. The latter case happened in the case of the Belgrano, the Argentine aircraft carrier had earlier been extremely lucky to avoid being torpedoed as RoE at the time did not permit her to be attacked.
Whilst there are conspiracy theories in Argentina and the UK that the attack on Belgrano was designed to derail the peace process, the attack was legitimate within the LOAC, the exclusion zone is largely an irrelevance. Even the captain of the ship admits the action was legitimate. Personally I would suggest that the requirements of WP:NPOV does not require us to report these conspiracy theories. Justin talk 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And as a footnote, I think you'll find that the British Government accepted the Peruvian peace plan and continued to offer peace terms for some time after the sinking of the Belgrano. Justin talk 17:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


This is ridiculous! What the point to have an Argentine View section if can only have thoughts that are compatible with the british ones ? --Jor70 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, its that Wikipedia is not a conduit for Argentine conspiracy theories. Nor is it a conduit for excusing the Argentine Junta for their actions. As noted above Britain was still prepared to pull back from open conflict even after grievous losses, the Argentina junta was not. Justin talk 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should have an Argentine View section, or a British View section. Given the controversy of the topic it just seems like they'd be used for both sides to argue with each other. There's also not enough difference in the "views" to warrant a section for each side. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

True, I interpret 'Argentine view' to mean the view of the Argentine government, both the Argentine government and the British government agree as to what actually happened and there is therefore no purpose in having two sections and unless someone can come up with a reason why not, I propose mergin the facts contained in each section into one section - I will be back in a week to do this. Random conspiracy theories supported only by spanish language pages of no authority have no place on this page - set up a separate conspiracy theory page like the one for 9/11 if you like. I mean, if what was said on the Reconquista municipal site was true was does the Argetine navy not agree with it? On what authority does it ground its assertions? Someone has challenged the reason for insisting on central government sources - this is simply because only the central government can speak on what its view is, Reconquista's site represents only the city of Reconquista - not the Argentine navy. FOARP (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny how people usually dead set against military dictatorships are willing to agree with every word they say, even after that military dictatorship has invaded their territory, if its a way of oppossing their elected government that they dont agree with!Willski72 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I reread the two views merged solution and there is no reference to both effects the sinking cause. 1) the retirement of ARA surface fleet. 2) hardened the Junta position against a peaceful solution. --Jor70 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but where is the evidence tha the sinking "hardened the Junta position against a peaceful solution"? They rebuffed all previous attempts at peace. A more objective assessment is it was used as an excuse by the military regime; contrast that with the willingness of the British Government to still consider a peace deal after the loss of Sheffield. Justin talk 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
probably, but after the sinking they did not even negotiate any more --Jor70 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Did they negotiate before that? Seriously, as Perez de Cuellar observed he was amazed at the concessions Britain was prepared to make, Argentina on the other hand never wavered from its demands. The Junta assumed their military position was unassailable, the US military certainly thought it so. To be truthful the British were lucky that the Argentine military leaders conduct of the war was so abysmally incompetent; they should have won.
I would agree that we should comment that the sinking caused the withdrawal of the navy. However, the impact on the negotiations requires more careful thought. Its incorrect to say that Argentina terminated negotiations, late in the conflict when defeat appeared inevitable, the Junta tried to restart negotiations to delay the British advance. At best I would suggest the incident was used as a pretext to withdraw from negotiations. Justin talk 11:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
we must admit all peaceful proposals offered (included UN502) forced a total retirement and return to previous status quo on the islands which after the massive public demonstrations along the country on April 2 would be seen (the junta) as major traitors. Neverthless, really incompetent decisions on both diplomatic and military levels produced the same result so I have no problem mention it as a pretext. --Jor70 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's accurate as it stands. "The Fight For the Malvinas" lists the Torpedo'd position as 55.18S, 61.47W - with the most westward position of Gp. 79.3 as 55.15S, 57.50W. I'd rather we have a "free" map showing the position and courses of the British Task force, Gp 79.1 and Gp 79.4 with there relative positions and courses. I'm going to remove the link for now since it doesn't cite any source for the position and it disagrees with my source. Megapixie 01:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

55 grados 24 minutos de Latitud Sur y 61 grados 32 minutos de Longitud Oeste , Argentine Congress [4] --Jor70 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I wonder why there is a discrepancy ? I will investigate and discuss here before reverting. Megapixie 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
A publication from the Argentine Congress can hardly be considered NPOV or authoritative - just look at what's currently happening with the Iranians. For true NPOV we need co-ordinates that are cited by a source affiliated with neither side in the conflict. AulaTPN 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That why we clarify that IS an argentine publication, feel free to look for another source to ADD. Anyway, there is not doubt that Belgrano was at least 30 milles of the exclusion zone. Jor70 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh of course, I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise merely to shed light on Megapixie's quandary as to why there was a discrepancy.AulaTPN 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the map published by newspaper Clerin, Belgrano would be no more than 3 and 1/2 degrees lengt away from the centre of the circle. That is 210 NM. "Atleast 30 miles" must mean ten in terms of nautical miles.....how does that add up?

Sun Article

Right - some people are editing the text under the image from the Sun and it seems to be because they are not understanding the title. "Sink Gunboat Hole Cruiser" means that they sank the gunboat but just put a hole in the side of the Belgrano. It does not mean they thought they sank the Belgrano - "hole" versus "whole". Please do not make this edit again or I will refer the matter to an admin. AulaTPN 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read now on the little the ship was not sunk and it is not clear how many casualties there were. You could also clarify that the gunboat was not sunk.--Jor70 14:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that some of the British Sailors were so incensed by the Sun's tone, that they requested copies of that edition for (ahem) bathroom stationary. ISTR that there was a reference on here once, can't find it now though! 194.129.249.111 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of Torpedo

What is the source of the statemtn that Mark 8 torpedoes were used instead of Tigerfish was because of reliablity concerns. I was given to believe (and I think it was in Sandy Woodward's book) that it was because the mk 8 had a larger explosive load, having been designed to sink armoured ships, whereas the tigerfish, being designed to sink thinner skinned modern ships may not have had the clout to sink the WW2 cruiser. Epeeist smudge 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I (still) need to unpack my books related to the Falklands War, but in the meantime I've found the same quotation in the WikiArticle about the Mark 24 Tigerfish torpedo. I know that personal experience it's not valid as evidence in an encyclpedia, but I recall having heard/read that statement before (now I need to find the sources where I've read that!). Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you go carefully through all the available sources you will find that Chris Wreford-Brown states that he fired three torpedos. He states that two Mk. VIII's struck the Belgrano. Nowhere is it stated that three Mk. VIII's were fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.41.88 (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Both torpedo's had similar quantities of explosive (mark viii: 800 lb whilst the mark 24 mod 1 had 750 lb. ) Against a heavily armoured cruiser travelling at moderate speeds in a straight line from a perfect firing position the mark viii was the right choice. The mark 24's would of offered no advantage.94.168.48.161 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did so many die?

Why did so many die compared to other ships sunk? Is it because the torpedo hit where the majority of the crew were? Ryan4314 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Belgrano was a 1930s cruiser (albeit refitted to carry the latest Exocet missiles, and helicopters I believe) so she was very man-intensive, as opposed to technology-intensive, due to her age. According to the article, the second torpedo (which exploded in the middle of the ship, tearing through mess-decks) killed about 275 people of the 323 who died i.e. only 48 men died as a result of first or third torpedoes, drowning, exposure, etc. So the torpedo and blast caused most of the casualties.

Complement was 1,138. As a comparison, Britain had no cruisers, but HMS Sheffield (first British destroyers sunk) carried 287.

From a tactical point of view, you have to ask what use the Belgrano was. As an offensive weapon, she was vulnerable to air and sub-sea attack - but she could have defended other Argentine ships, or been used to defend Stanley with gunfire and AA.

To add my tuppence worth - she was a belligerent warship, involved in active and co-ordinated tactical operations against the Falkland Islands. She was carrying guns, missiles and helicopters. The Argentines had invaded the Falklands without warning, in breach of international law. I see no argument against sinking her. It was war - aim is to kill or unull the enemy threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.252.21 (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have read that the distress signal was not sent, as the communications had been hit. Her escorrage (two smaller warsips) heard nothing, and saw nothing due to pitch darkness. It makes me wonder if the Captains chose not to act on if they had any suspicion to Belgranos (actual) situation. It seems the Argentines have scrutiniced their own effort of the war, they would probaply see this as an honest mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.74 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thatcher

I am too young to remember this, but the following article [[5]] seems to suggest this was quite a setback for Thatcher, and was responsible for strained government-BBC relations in the 80s. Was this the case? Surely alongside the legitimacy of the sinking, the controversy section should focus on the effects in Britain (attitude to the war, to the government,...)Hrcolyer (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You have read the article right? Because that incident is already included in the article, its given due weight to its significance see WP:UNDUE. I really don't see your point. Justin talk 13:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The political repercussions of the sinking are unfortunately probably the main reason why the incident is notable in British culture. Yes it's mentioned in numerous articles. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the BBC need an actual reason to dislike a Tory government. The fact that it is a Tory government is reason enough for them. Overall, I think the sinking probably increased Thatcher's standing with the people. The notability of the sinking is not in my view due to any political implications, but mainly the fact that it was the single largest loss of Argentine life in the Falklands War, as well as the first time a British submarine had sank an enemy ship since World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMarshall (talk • contribs) 10:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
To my knowledge, it's only happened twice in the postwar era, that a submarine has sunk an enemy ship. The British managed to kill of twice as many enemy as the Pakistanis did. The Pakistanis sunk an Indian battleship 10 years in advance, and the Indians were sunk close to their own shoreline. If we make up some handicap equations, I may have to admit that the Pakistani submarine ( Daphnè -French design)was better than British design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.74 (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
When? Which ship? Thks, DPdH (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The correct name of the ship is INS Khukri. She was sunk 35 miles (30 NM or so) away from nearest of friendly harbour. As for handicap equations, the Pakistais got 5.85 times as many enemies as Nautical Miles INS Khukri was missing. HMS Conquerer hit the Belgramo 57 NM away from Argentina, but got 5.65 times as many enemies. Simular numbers, but the Pakistanis were first. As for British vs. French. vs. German vs. US technology, the Americans have a good alibi for USS Phoenix. She was a robust ship in which the Argentines had to send on an offensive mission, not exactly Pearl Harbour. The INS Khukri (despite her name) was in effect British, by technology that is. The J. Samuel White shipyard at Cowes is since 1981 disfunct. There seems to be no contest on the legal status to the sinking of the INS Khukri, given her closer proximity to a friendly harbour.--85.164.220.173 (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Either merge with USS Salish article, or merge section from it here. Because of size of articles, probably separate articles, with a "Main article" link and short summary under the Salish. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a simply ridiculous suggestion, one that has no merit whatsoever. They're completely different ships, they were engaged under completely different circumstances, in completely different locations, with completely different outcomes. Justin talk 13:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I'll remove it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I think he meant USS Phoenix, and I think a merge goes against the convention for ships with multiple users. The articles for HMNZS Achilles and INS Delhi are separate, though they are both about the same physical ship. CMarshall (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately he didn't, he made a series of changes to the USS Salish article that got reverted because they were incorrect (he assumed distances were in statute miles when they were nautical miles). When I pointed that out, he took the hump, couldn't accept he'd made a mistake and went after a number of articles I'd edited. This is only one of the results. Justin talk 09:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"The rules of engagement were changed specifically to permit the engagement of the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking."

I might be wrong, not being an expert on the subject, but this seems to me like it has been added by someone with a specific viewpoint to promote, a minority view stated as if it were fact.

Correct me if I'm wrong. 82.43.158.82 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's factual, relevant, neutrally presented, and reliably cited to Admiral Sandy Woodward, the commander of the Task Force, so it seems fine to me. Hohum (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is just a misunderstanding of the difference between the Law of Armed Conflict and Rules of Engagement. The difference is that Rules of Engagement limit are limits on military action that would permitted under the Law of Armed Conflict. In actual fact the IP has a point as the RoE were changed to allow a submarine attack but the reference to the exclusion zone is immaterial since that was changed on April 23. Justin talk 12:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Both sides understood..." I am just wondering if this should read: "Both sides were to understand". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.74 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

wrong sentence

The intention of the Belgrano unit in approaching from the south was, indeed, as the Argentine Navy said afterwards, to apply a pincer movement, so a defensive move was very appropriate.

I do not know who post this unsourced wp:or sentence. Its justifying the British view with Argentine actions prior the sinking. There is already well know that the pincer move was aborted long before the sinking. All ARA groups were heading to the continent and the british known this as a chilean sources testify on multiple interviews. --Jor70 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sentence added October 1, 2007 by 82.33.208.30 Ryan4314 (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!, is there an easy way to find these things ? --Jor70 (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Article history > "Revision history search". If you need any help, feel free to ask. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Jor70 but the pincer move was not cancelled as you put it, it was merely postponed awaiting favourable winds to launch a strike. The ARA groups were not headed to the continent, they were headed to a holding point awaiting more favourable conditions for an attack. It is not WP:OR because it can be cited from Martin Middlebrook's Argentine fight for the Malvinas. And this isn't a British view, it is confirmed by Argentine sources as well. Please don't view this through the prism of narrow nationalism. I would prefer it, if you were to restore it but if not, I will and will add a cite if its disputed. Justin talk 15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok then please rephase the sentence: to apply a pincer movement to something like they were headed to the continent to a holding point awaiting more favourable conditions adding the proper sources. --Jor70 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really, the intention was still to attack in a pincer movement, there was a delay that was all. And they weren't headed home in any case, the heading at the time of the attack was immaterial, all they had to do was turn the wheel and that changed. Justin talk 16:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I dont agree, argentines sources claimed the combined attack (ARA/FAA) was halted after the May 1st fiasco until a decision about Peru president proposal was taken. but whatever, if you want to reinstate the sentence as was please add a reference to make clear from where this came from. --Jor70 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually no they don't, Captain Bonzo and Admiral Lombardo for example are on the record as confirming what I reported. A lot of the early Argentine and British works that came out were incorrect. Galtieri may have later claimed what you report here but that wasn't the case. Justin talk 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The Argentine navy just redesigned their website (very nice btw) but for some reason they seem to still maintain the old version of the events [6] la contraofensiva naval argentina había dado marcha atrás, toda vez que se consideraba inviable la misma ante el desnivel de fuerzas entre ambas armadas y la inminencia de resultados pacíficos del conflicto which could be traslatated as [7]. Im sure we can find the same at the foreign ministry website too. But as I said, if you want to maintain the British bibliography version just add the ref --Jor70 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Jor70 but that is pure and utter propaganda, which is nothing whatsoever to do nationalism, and it really surprises me that you'd push that line. I thought we'd worked through that and this is really disappointing. There are plenty of independent sources to rebut that, thats not the way it happened and its revisionist nonsense of the worst kind. To be honest I'm simply gutted that you would do this. Justin talk 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
why? IS NOT very different . 1) Tactical disvantage so they retreat and 2) this happened just in time with Terry proposal. Would be propaganda if they define this as a crime, what they didnt, in fact, Bonzo recognized that even in retreat if a Brit ship would be seen, would be attacked inmediately. --Jor70 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Except they didn't retreat and would have pressed the attack if the weather had been different or the Belgrano hadn't been attacked. Even that has been admitted by Argentine sources, this kind of revisionist approach to history is what causes wars in the first place. Thank you nonetheless for adding the material from Argentine sources, I'll add something later. Justin talk 09:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Gents, the reference to a pincer movement AFAIK is correct. However I do not have handy different verifiable sources to cite. Justin, maybe a citation supporting the disputed sentence would be appropriate? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(BTW, Jor70, I preferred the older version of the ARA website. Some info about the naval units (eg: ship profiles) has been lost, and it much slower now).
I already posted ARA refs about the heading was irrelevant. What do you mean with ships profiles ? [8] doesnt count ? --Jor70 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gender

The ship is an inanimate object, not an individual or collective female person. It should be refered to as "it", not "she". There was indeed a custom of doing so in the english languaje, but it's currently in decline and the Chicago Manual of Style discourages it. Check Grammatical gender#Gender in English MBelgrano (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Our guidelines on the matter are here and here, and support the current practice in use in this article. Benea (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I must said calling Manuel Belgrano as she sounds to me a bit strange, Im not a native english speaker though. --Jor70 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Trust me, as someone who's taken a ship article up to FA, "she" is ok. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, a specific ship is still referred as to "she'. Agree with keeping it that way. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In the UK (which has a substantial maritime history) the use of the term she arises from the early practice of giving sailing ships elaborate carved figureheads, at one time almost always of a female figure, often of a mythical sea goddess, scantily-clad in a classical pose. If the figurehead was female then it (and by extension, the ship) would be referred-to as She. That's also why a ship is also referred-to as her, as in that's her, the "Castle Dorrington", lying over there in the second dock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.117 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Until the 1750's most carved figureheads were, nearly always, either representations of lions, or mythical creatures like dragons. See any of the preserved figureheads from before this time. Scantily clad female figures did not start to appear, and then almost only on merchant ships, until around the 1850's. Ship's were called she in English speaking countries for a long time before the 1850's, most probably because females were few and far between at sea. Plus as I know from a long time at sea, some ships behave in as contrary a fashion as some females!

It is standard English language useage always to refer to ships as 'she'. If you can't spell 'language' you should be cautious about laying down the law about correct English

useage. Apologies for the non-split infinitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.15.184 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In English, inanimate objects are nearly always "she". I.e. "aint she a beauty?" about a nice sports car or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.179.213 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Great Wrongs and Advocacy

Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs or as a platform for advocacy. See WP:NPOV and also WP:BRD. Justin talk 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, all of us agree with that. However, it would be better if you explain the way those ideas apply to the recent reversions, meaning, why do you consider ValenShephard's edits to be attempting to "right great wrongs". And after doing so, ValenShephard should explain why does he think that his edits are not attempting to "right great wrongs". The text would then stay or be removed according to who does provide more clear arguments, or which one gathers more consensus MBelgrano (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Which I did do on my talk page but if edit summaries are ignored, together with more explicit explanations elsewhere, what is an editor to do? Justin talk 16:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Please could you point here where is that edit actually mentioned in the article? I couldn't find its duplicate. pmt7ar (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. There was a previous discussion between Justin and Valenshephard at User talk:Justin A Kuntz. When you reply to things about an article said somewhere else than the article's talk page, try to remember to link where did the previous conversation took place, so that third users don't get lost.
Having said that, it is correct that there was already information about the controversy, and that it rewrites what the source actually states, but this specific issue (the dismissed suit) does not seem to be mentioned. The mention of the "dangerous precedent" at the end of the news seems to mean this may be an issue note-worthy enough as to deserve a mention. Perhaps not in the terms of the edit provided, but yes in some others.
And a side note: the sentence "In 1994, the Argentine government conceded that the sinking of the Belgrano was "a legal act of war"" is literally repeated in sections "Later political controversy" and "Aftermath". One of both should either be removed or expanded. However, as this isn't a topic I'm completely well-informed, I leave it to oher editors to decide where would that sentence belong MBelgrano (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
MBelgrano, I'd agree one should be removed if its duplicated, there is no need to mention it twice. It would appear that someone has removed the original section I had in mind so I have no objection to that information being re-added. But it needs to be written according to our policies. Justin talk 12:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT I am not involved in this article, I am only involved in an Arbcom case where Justin A Kuntz is also involved. I am worried about Justin's lack of awareness about his battleground mentality, and have casually seen that Justin has violated the 3RR rule yesterday in this article (but as the other user was a newbie, he probably didn't know much about how to report it). I am going to report him to the 3RR noticeboard to see if I can get the message through (I'll ask for a warning, not a block). I am posting this here because Justin does not allow me to post in his talk page. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I have included the report here. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I noted on the Arbcom talk page, I think it deeply unhelpful for good order and pleasant working conditions for you to follow Justin around like this, given your history of dispute on Gibraltar articles. You actions are likely to do nothing but inflame tensions on an already tense topic and make consensus on Gibraltar articles rather more difficult to attain. Pfainuk talk 09:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The aftermath section (which I created) is supposed to be that, what happened next, so the 1994 granting of legal status must go there. Also the gotcha pic (which btw is posted on many articles) as this is actually the correct article for it, should have the whole explanation, including the confusion with the Sobral which at some point was in this article and someone obviously removed it --Jor70 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK, thanks for explaining that. That seems sensible to me. Justin talk 13:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

errata to Mark 8 torpedo's

The article previously stated that the torpedos were modified from a 1925 design. This reference has been removed on the basis that it makes it appear that the torpedos were relics. Every component of the torpedo had been completely changed in the decades since the mark viii's creation - effectively the 'mark viii' referred to a class of royal navy unguided anti-ship torpedo's of that size & payload, rather than a particular torpedo design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.48.161 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm no - the RNTF Mark VIII that was used against the Belgrano was the same 21" torpedo that was used all during WW II by the submarines of the Royal and Commonwealth navies. The type had been designed in the 1920s and had been so extensively tested in the mid-war period that when war came in 1939 it performed excellently, the only torpedo failures the RN and Commonwealth navies suffered was the occasional batch problem, due to variations in manufacture, and maintenance issues due to things like wrong grade of lubricating oils accidentally being used. The other problems suffered were with the then-new Magnetic Exploders, which were intended to detonate the weapon underneath the target vessel (where it's less-well armoured and weaker), these were found to be effectively unworkable, so the RN withdrew them all after a mistaken attack on the HMS Sheffield using air-dropped 18" torpedoes resulted in them all either exploding prematurely or in not going-off at all. The Mark VIII was an excellent weapon, still capable of sinking a ship in 1982, and it was only slowly being replaced because it was getting a bit 'long in the tooth' and was slow (~40Kt) compared to later designs. During the Cold War it was considered arming the Mark VIII with a WE.177A nuclear warhead to counter deep-diving Soviet submarines, although that was not proceeded with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.212 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Italics on article title

Just noticed, when happened ? nice touch --Jor70 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? Not seeing it. Justin talk 22:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In my screen the top title ARA General Belgrano is shown ARA General Belgrano on the article (but not in this talk page) ----
I guess this edit is the one that caused that. But perhaps it changes between browsers, because mine doesn't show italics either (in the article itself) MBelgrano (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Gracias! --Jor70 (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Map ARA.Belgrano.sunk.svg

Hi,

I added a map (file:ARA.Belgrano.sunk.svg) over the deployment of naval forces on 1-2 May 1982, before the Belgrano sinking, in the South Atlantic. I hope for feedback. --Keysanger 16:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

my 2c:
  • as always you should first ask here before changing the article
  • A small "(Malvinas)" under Falklands would be appropiated
  • The AR TGs werent so north
  • The British fleet wasnt altogether, Sheffield group was south.
  • Alferez Sobral, was inside the ZEE

--Jor70 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, there was also a Super Etendard sortie that day, ahead of the torpedoing of Belgrano. It often gets forgotten with the subsequent controversy. Justin talk 19:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be back soon. --Keysanger 19:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK my other suggestion would be to add the Burdwood Bank. The proximity of shallow water was a factor in the decisions made. Just a thought. Justin talk 22:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded the new, more compact version of the map, with a more Middlebrook-fashion description of the route of the A. ships. Technically, the svg image can include almost every detail, but the reader usually wants a quick overview of the situation without the need to open a new window for the map, so, we have indeed only 400 pixel (in this case) to explain the most important facts of the situation. That is the reason of my parsimony regarding details. The scale for the 200 nm corresponds to the miles at the 52°S latitude, but because of aesthetics I put it below.

I couldn't find the coordinates of the centre of the TEZ and also the radius of 200nm is estimative. Please, read carefully every sentence of the picture and tell me about flaws of spell, grammar or style. Are the facts correct described?. R.Moro (17:57) and Middlebrook (15:57) give different times for the sinking of the Belgrano. My first thought was that they used Ar. v/s Br. times, but both give almost the same time for the return of the Belgrano from the furthest (east) point reached ("t2" im the picture): Moro gives 5:30 and Middlebrook gives 5:00.

Which is the right time of the sinking? Br. or Ar. time? which are the coordinates of the centre of the TEZ?. Best Regards, --Keysanger 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have boldly altered the image colouring to be more map-like. I hope that this is seen as an improvement. (Hohum @) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It is better! --Keysanger 20:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good, one tiny criticism, is it worth including the Beagle Channel Dispute? I have no strong feelings either way but it could be described as tangentially relevant. Justin talk 22:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think, it is worth to be shown because the issue appears again and again: the "Chilean threat", "the Sea King incident", "the best Argentine troops were there", "the Belgrano had to stop the Chilean fleet", etc, etc. And there are no much options: 1)We cut the map north of Ushuaia or east of Nueva Island, 2)we don't draw the border between Ch-Ar in the area 3)we let it be as now and say what was the dispute. --Keysanger 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I reduced the thickness of the border to 1 pixel. --Keysanger 21:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Time & date format should be consistent.
  • t1: Dawn 1 May
  • t2: 2 May 5:00
If you know it, please state which time zone is being used (i.e. FKT, UTC-3, UTC/GMT/ZULU), have a consistent time/date order, if you know what time dawn was, provide it. for example:
  • t1: 04:20 (UTC-4) 1 May (Dawn)
  • t2: 05:00 (UTC-4) 2 May
(Hohum @) 22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


Argentina did not claim Cape Horn, the color is wrong down there. "Recco" seems nicer than "Recce". The Alferez Sobral attack should be shown to explain the gotcha. And what happened with "Malvinas" ? --Jor70 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Recce is correct in English, this being the English wikipedia I wouldn't yse Recco. The Alferez Sobral attack could be added as it took place on the same day but we risk cluttering the map on a tangential matter. I would suggest removing Falklands to either leave blank or replace with a smaller font "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" per the UN designation. Justin talk 23:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
My mistake then, I always thought recco was an english word. There is place on the legends to add just a t3 with the Alferez Sobral attack. Please change ARA Belgrano there with just Belgrano, ARA should be only used as ARA Gral Belgrano. The UN or blank would be ok. --Jor70 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Argentina did not claim Cape Horn? ... Here you may find this Argentine stamp edited by the Argentine government at 1983. The stamp bears explicit the legend I. HORNOS (ARG.) (capital letters are from original, I.Hornos is Spanish for Horn Island). The only one interpretation of the text is, for me, that the Argentine State, stress the Island Horn as Argentine territories. Not enough?, take a look to the replaced map in the article, reproduction of a map published by the A. newspaper Clarin after the Belgrano sinking. They show the islands also as Argentine territories. --Keysanger 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see now here [9] that hard nationalism jump out in the middle of the war, most probably by the same people who sunk Hermes on May 1st. What I recalled was that during the pope mediation and people referendum the question was just the 3 islands. --Jor70 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
20,000 pesos for a stamp tells you all you need to know about the Junta ruling Argentina in 1983.86.42.206.5 (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Tidying Notes and Bibliography

The Notes and Bibliography need some tidying: I have done a little but I think it would be best done by someone with the books to hand. Bonzo's book is "1991" in the text but "2004" in the Bibliography; the Library of Congress online catalog gives editions of 1992 and 2000, with different publishers. Also, the "Friends" association published a book on the ship in 2009, but they don't give publication details: [10] --Wikiain (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New book shows the ship was steaming towards the Falklands

There is an item in today's Telegraph which shows the ship was steaming towards the Falklands. Perhaps something can be incorporated into the article. Belgrano was heading to the Falklands, secret papers reveal jmb (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph says that the ship was steaming to a non specified position inside 'the' exclusion zone. This leaves wide open the possibility that the ship was heading out from the Falklands, towards a position near the edge of the exclusion zone. So 'steaming towards the Falklands' is not corroborated by the article. Also the timing (late april 1982) leaves open a date many days before the sinking. Also, the report is not exactly clear about which exclusion zone they refer to, because it doesn't mention the 200 miles. The British military believed that any warship in the wider area could pose a threat by making coordinated large circles (pincer theory), and therefore enemy ships needed to be excluded from the wider area.

I seem to remember that the commander of the submarine who followed the Belgrano prior to sinking it, reported to London that Belgrano was following a course AWAY from the Falkslands. Interesting, this is supported by the photo on the Telegraphs article: cold strong winds are in South Atlantic pre-winter most likely to come from south westerly or therabout directions. The rafts are blown over the water much quicker then the sinking ship, most likely in a roughly nort-easterly direction. So the photo must have been made backwards (towards the sinking ship) into south westerly direction, or thereabout. The Belgrano clearly shows its bottom up in the left (south-east or thereabout) of the picture, and hence its bow pointing north-west (or thereabout). Having worked in ship salvaging on two oceans, I know that stopping a ship thru electricity outing (and hence steering pumps outing) in such weather is very unlikely to turn it around: high waves and strong winds quickly reduce its speeds and stabilize its course roughly perpendicular on the wind, with the bow usually five or ten degrees off the wind.

Provisional conclusion: photo is from the hour of sinking (which is not sure form the report cited in the Telegraph), and most likely shows the ship headed north or north-west.

I will try to find wind charts for the moment and location of sinking the Belgrano. If they turn out to be indeed south-westerly (or thereabout) shall we then put in the article that most likely, the Belgrano was heading out of the exclusion zone while it was torpedoed? Or shall we do it right now, attributing it to the commander of the submarine?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No don't do that, wikipedia's policy strictly forbids original research in articles, what you're proposing is clear original research. Further the course of the Belgrano at the time of the sinking is immaterial, what matters was it position, capability and intention. It wasn't heading toward the Falklands but to a holding area, whilst waiting for favourable conditions to launch an attack. Its course and intentions are not disputed by either side, only fringe theories conspiracy theories make more it than this and we don't report those either. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, you'r right about original research. And about the relevance of its intentions. If Belgrano's course is not disputed by either side, then there is consensus that it was not heading into the exclusion zone? Then clearly the Daily Telegraphs' article (and possibly also the report its based on) is wrong? And if its course was irrelevant, then that makes the Daily Telegraph article also irrelevant? Throw that one out? Or are only articles, suggesting extra threat from the Belgrano relevant? Sureley that would be a neutrality violation?

What is relevant or not for Wikipedia, is determined not only by military style reasoning from one side in this conflict, but also by the perception of more general users of Wikipedia. For them, Belgrano's course might be much more relevant, as suggested by all the media attention (including the Daily Telegraph article) and discussion that this generated. And I surely agree to avoid citing 'shot in its back while following Maggie's orders and fleeing' - type of articles. (I think that was the New Left Review), because like the Daily Telegraph, its 90 % interpretation with no balanced information. Let the reader do their individual judgment. But to judge its intentions of the moment, we surely need more then a dubious Telegraph interpretation of a report based on third hand info with unavailable original sources, that precedes the sinking with probably around a week or more, with newer orders to the Belgrano of a different kind being utterly likely, as suggested by its major change of course inbetween.

Shall we then try to source the observations by HMS Conqueror about Belgrano's course, and put it in? To prevent accusations of bias based on one sided sources, shall we also try to add a bit more the Argentinian observations and arguments regarding Belgrano's course and intentions?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? There isn't a neutrality problem, which has nothing to do with military style reasoning. There is a diagram showing the course, its orders are reported, I really have no idea of what you're proposing. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain. Writing in Wikipedia that " despite... Belgrano was ... sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone" (last paragraph) will be read by almost all readers as: those orders were still standing while the ship was sunk. And that is simply not backed up by any source. Because there is no hint of proof that those orders were the last, and still standing. The Belgrano-orders, intercepted by the Brits (according to Daily Telegraph article) were issued late April 1982. The ship was sunk on May 2nd. There is no proof that no newer orders had reached the Belgrano. The turn around of the Belgrano ten hours earlier, and the course while being hit by torpedoes, strongly suggests that it was responding to newer orders to (temporarily or not) to move away from the exclusion zone. Two or more days old orders, likely to have been overruled by newer orders, should either not be mentioned, or their age should be mentioned, and it should be added that it is unclear and unlikely that those orders were still standing during sinking.

Which of the two shall we do? I propose: "The book revealed that several days prior to its sinking, the Belgrano had been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone, to engage in a pincer attack. It remains unclear if those orders were still standing. Ten hours before being torpedoed, the Belgrano had turned around and set course away from the Falklands."Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither, we don't invent content, we report what reliable 3rd party sources say. Further you're wrong, Belgranos orders were clear and have been acknowledged by the Argentine navy. Its clear and unamibuously acknowledged by both sides. Please note having given clear guidance on how to produce content, I will revert further examples of original research, without further comment here. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree to reverting original research. Luckily, none of the bits I put in, were original research. The core fact is, that the orders were several days old. The way it is presented now in Wikipedia, is that we know they were the last, and only relevant orders, still standing. Which is misleading. What is your prposal to fix this? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything you put in was your original research and to be frank your comments are nonsense, the article is not misleading. You claim the orders were "days old", without any evidence whatsoever. That is in fact wrong, both sides had regularly updated their orders. Which part of basing material upon reliable 3rd party sources don't you understand? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry for not giving clear ref. It's the note 38 article (Harding, Thomas (26 December 2011). "Belgrano was heading to the Falklands, secret papers reveal". The Daily Telegraph (London).)

"The report states that in late April 1982, they intercepted a message sent from naval headquarters ordering the Belgrano and its escorts to a grid reference within the exclusion zone and not back to base as the Argentines later claimed. "

late April might be anything after 23rd. I can't find a more exact date. Can you?

You say that both sides had regularly updated their orders. Where can I find that for the Argentinian side? What were those later orders? If we have no source on that, shall we then stick to what we DO know: The orders were several days old.?

One other point: The article says under Later political controversy, that "This is the official position of the Argentine navy. (note 30)"

I carefully red the article in La Nacion it refers to. Enrique Molina Pico nowhere claims he speaks for the Argentine Navy. It's written as the private opinion of the ex Chief of Staff. (he retired from the navy in 1996, see http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Molina_Pico) Which is normal practice: One of the essences of democracy is, that governments are in charge of armies. As a result, armies don't have positions in political debates. Shall we throw out the sentence? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Orders are repeated on a cycle, yes I can provide a cite if necessary. Further you are concluding on the basis of certain facts that the orders were several days old and you don't have a source to say that. It is WP:OR, your WP:OR.
Your second point is fallacious reasoning, it is a relevant opinion, attributed to the originator, so no you don't throw out the sentence. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I DO have a source, and I gave it in the previous post. Just read the article: [1], eighth paragraph : "The report states that in late April 1982..."

Yes, it is a relevant opinion, so the opinion should stay in the article, but not the next sentence (that it is the official opinion of the Argentine navy). It should go out, because there is no source for it.

Shall we either add, that the orders the Brits knew about, were several days old and unlikely to be still standing, (we agree on that, you write that orders are repeated on a cycle) or give the newer orders with source? And throw out the unsourced sentence? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No you do not have a source, you are making a deduction based on an assumption. And I reject your demanded edit as it is based on wp:or, just as I object to your demand to remove sourced material. I see little point in trying to discuss this further as your edit is unsourced and removal of sourced material to alter the balance of NPOV to favour various conspiracy theories is not acceptable. Rest assured if you attempt to force this into the article I or other editors will remove it based on this discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Curry and Dave, It seems like you both didn't read the Wiki-sources before answering my post. The source for the orders to the Belgrano, mentioned in the current page, is the article in the Daily Telegraph. In that same article, it is also mentioned that those orders were given in late April, as I explained above. That makes them several days old on the moment of sinking. It is weird and far outside Wiki logic to call it original research if I actually read the sources that wiki-articles give, and on that basis alone, propose to add the age of the orders as 'several days'. The same counts for my proposal, surrounding the wiki-sentence: "This is the official position of the Argentine Navy.[30]" I just read the source behind reference 30, and the whole article nowhere states that the preceeding centences (to which I don't object) are the official position of the Argentine Navy. That is why I proposed to throw out the sentence that it is the official position of the Argentine Navy.

Curry, I have a lot of appreciation for all the good work you do on Wikipedia. Compliments! I find it also a bit worrying that you use strongly worded disqualifications of my proposals, while avoiding checking the given sources, with the effect of delaying improvements on accuracy. And that you drag Dave along in this. While for a slightly more neutral reader, your arguments would likely be without basis in the Wiki-sources. I hope you start reading those sources behind this Wiki-page, or at least the sentences I pointed out, so that we don't need to call in such a third person. I hope that after that, you yourself make the improvements. Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Harding, Thomas (26 December 2011). "Belgrano was heading to the Falklands, secret papers reveal". The Daily Telegraph. London.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ARA_General_Belgrano/Archive_1&oldid=1143537258"