Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 183: Line 183:
::Ok WCM. Do you want to work on it with me Jej1997? Give us something to do. Wee, what is the best available source online that you would recommend for restructuring? Simon. [[User:Irondome|Irondome]] ([[User talk:Irondome|talk]]) 16:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
::Ok WCM. Do you want to work on it with me Jej1997? Give us something to do. Wee, what is the best available source online that you would recommend for restructuring? Simon. [[User:Irondome|Irondome]] ([[User talk:Irondome|talk]]) 16:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
:::There isn't a good source online I'm afraid, the best coverage is in Freedman's Official Histories. Its covered in depth in Chapter 25. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 19:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
:::There isn't a good source online I'm afraid, the best coverage is in Freedman's Official Histories. Its covered in depth in Chapter 25. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 19:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::Without a verifiable and reliable source such an obviously OR and opinionated statement has no purpose on this site. [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mabuska|(talk)]]</sup> 20:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:42, 7 October 2016

Former featured article candidateFalklands War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
November 20, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate


http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/us-CIAfalklands.asp

It goes under Argentine Invasion: Position of third party countries. Just after the following paragraph. I can't do it through my phone.

The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. Solri89 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote that page on the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website? NebY (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail on the head Neby, I've tried to tell the guy politely his own theories are not suitable content. The actual source says:
I've tried telling him that the US refused to retask their satellites from NATO duties, by the time it did happen the war was nearly over and satellite intelligence played no role. His main source seems to be himself, he is claiming to be an intelligence officer with access to classified material, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
He seems to be ignoring my suggestion that he should be proposing an edit in talk and getting a consensus first. WCMemail 23:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still so missing the point WCM huh? Like I've stated to you numerous numerous types. It does not matter if the Intel was useless. (Of which it was not) What matters is they did it and offered it. I understand neby's confusion as he is new to this conversation but you? I ask again for someone to add the link. Thank you. Solri89 (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've ignored nothing. I've complied with all requests to find a "better" reliable source. How can anyone possibly believe, especially a Brit or a Commonwealth Nationer, that the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website is not reliable. That website is getting its information straight from the National Archives. I find it disingenuous on your part that you are attempting to allude that this was not already discussed. You, at first, swore up and down that the U.S. did not provide this support. I showed you the truth and now your saying they did but it was worthless. Can't have it both ways buddy. Either they did or didn't and you've already conceded that they have, that everything I've been saying is true. Solri89 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to discuss this with you on your WP page but I guess since you had no public forum there you decided to ignore the conversation. Plus it does not matter that I do know what I know and I never said I was an officer. What matters is that the CIA has finally decl'ed the Intel and that there is reliable sources. Margaret Thatchers was the best and in no way could be challenged as reliable (I also found it on Washington Post and a few others) Since it seems obvious you are a Brit or a CN'er I figured I'd use the link that I did. Face the truth already. It happened. It's published. Both U.S. and U.K. sources say so. Solri89 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i have no problem continuing to discuss this issue with anyone but I'll state I won't even read anymore posts from WCM as he seems highly disingenuous and for some reason only wants to bury the truth. I also have no problem rewording "and satellite intelligence" to whatever the reliable sources state at this time. If anyone is interested in what I know, get to me on my talk page. I just ask you leave a message here that you have done so that I know to check. I'll state what I can say but I will not violate the national secrets oath I took. And should you not believe that I did have the clearance, I will supply the non-classified paperwork that shows I did have a TS(CW) clearance. So that "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" people cannot mislead you. Solri89 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Freedman states in the British official history of the war that the US provided the UK with satellite images on only a single occasion during the war - of South Georgia a week after it was invaded (page 241 of volume 2). Interestingly enough, they also provided Argentina with LANDSAT photos of the Falklands region during the war, though they were militarily useless (pages 388-390). I agree that the Thatcher Foundation website cannot be assumed to be reliable without information on who wrote the analysis (whose obvious grammatical errors and clunky wording implies that the author was not an expert on this topic and/or that the foundation does not engage in proper editing processes). More specifically, it doesn't actually say that the US provided satellite photos to the British - only that they were used in internal CIA reports. If the material here is included, it can't just be as a blunt statement that satellite intel was provided as this only seems to have occurred once. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First rule about being in intelligence is; you do not talk about being in intelligence. I might have been just a Tom but even I know that. So no, I don't believe you. WCMemail 08:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick-D! You just provided another source for what I've been saying! To give you a quick background of this discussion: The U.S. as you correctly point out did provide the Intel/reports/photos (chose whichever you want) in violation of our own Monroe Doctrine. Yes, I agree the wording in the Thatcher article could have been written better. But now with your source that's totally irrelevant. As far as helping Argentina, that had nothing to do with the original intent to update this WP article. Although, we can include that as well. I do understand the Doctrine is not law. But ideals, especially one that has been used over and over to justify numerous actions for almost 200 years, cannot just be thrown out merely because they are inconvenient at the moment. Technically, because of the Doctrine, the U.S. should have provided military assistance to Argentina the second they kicked the British off them islands. Now, that's not realistic and would have been bad the whole world around so we should have stayed out of it altogether. Giving weapons, promising use of a warship is one thing. (It could've been later said that the U.K. could've used them for other purposes (as well)). Providing Intel, whether it was useless or not, is another and blatantly violated the Doctrine. It's time it's added, especially now that it's been declassified. Solri89 (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I know I said I'd ignore you but I can't help this one. Fight club references? Hahahaha!! The fact I worked Intel and my clearance are matters of public record! I wasn't a spy! I was a 98G1LCXK3. That's Army Military Intelligence, Czech Linguist approved for field station duty and trained in battlefront Intel equipment. Since you dared scorn my honor I'll say this: You just keep making yourself look less credible my friend. Solri89 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wee Curry Monster#Link to Falklands war Link to the discussion on my talk page, you asked about editing on an IPhone. I don't have a clue as I don't use Apple products. Security clearances simply aren't a matter of public record FYI. Did you enjoy Arizona? WCMemail 10:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that three different people here all agree that the U.S. did provide (I'll compromise and just say) Intel to the U.K. (Whether it's believed it was useless or not) can we update the article? We can use whichever rs link. Doesn't matter to me. I am also flexible on the wording as long as the gist of "U.S. provided Intel to U.K." is there. Seems the best compromise would be just to add "and Intelligence" to the end of the above referenced paragraph. Intelligence in this context could be one report, one photo or the whole library. We don't have to get into it that far. Everyone agreed? Solri89 (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such an inclusion on the basis of a single instance would be WP:UNDUE and - without weight or qualification - misleading to the reader. You appear to be arguing that "it's time it's added" because it "blatantly violated the Doctrine". Such editing to prove a point breaches one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, as further described in the WP:SOAPBOX section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and elsewhere.NebY (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. WCMemail 14:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I mentioned the Doctrine was my opinion. (This is the talk page). I never said that part should be added. But I can admit when I've been defeated. Anyway, all someone has to do is read theses talk posts. So everyone have a good day! WCM got a question for you in your talk page, and no hard feelings my friend. Solri89 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the only material support the US supplied Britain with was some later model improved Sidewinder missiles that were subsequently carried by the Sea Harriers.
The US was in something of a difficult situation in having to chose between two 'allies' and for most of the build-up to the Task Force arriving had to be seen to not be supporting either side. At the time Al Haig was attempting to mediate between the two opposing governments and so the US had to appear impartial. Ronald Reagan had publicly supported Galtieri's government for some time before the Invasion due to its stance against Communism and IIRC although extremely annoyed by Galtieri's rather rash act, he could not be seen to have to do an 'about face' and publicly come down on the side of Thatcher whether he actually wished to or not.
Caspar Weinberger was firmly on the UK's side, as was Haig (who was also extremely annoyed at Argentina's government), and the former did his best to provide the UK with as much support as he could behind the scenes. It emerged some years later that he had offered the UK the use of a US light carrier should it be required. The perceived view in the Whitehouse and Pentagon was that Argentina was going to 'get its ass kicked' and that Galtieri's government was going to fall as a result. The question was how long to wait before coming down firmly (and publicly) on the side of the UK. Despite this view Reagan's government via Haig did their best to try and give Galtieri a way out that would keep his government in power, but he was intransigent.
The Cold War was in full-swing at the time and Reagan had to bear in mind that a key strategic factor in US defence policy was the planned deployment of cruise missiles in the UK, and which were already controversial in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British victory, but continued Argentinian claim

Britain won the war, but accepted that Argentina continued to claim the Falklands. This is an aspect that should be elaborated. What happened after the islands were reconquered, and why did the British government accept Argentina continued to claim its territory? US pressure? Was it ever discussed attacking mainland Argentina to force the country to give up its claim? The aftermath of the war section is of limited help, there needs to be some "closure" section so its clear how and why the war ended.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


why did the British government accept Argentina continued to claim its territory? This simply means that Britains position after the war was along the lines of 'ok we won, but we understand you are still going to claim ownership' it isn't that the claim was given any weight, Britain knows Argentina has no legitimate claim on the territory, but has to accept that Argentina will nevertheless still keep making the claim.2A02:C7D:2BEA:7D00:2156:3C04:84FD:2B13 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British could not do anything about the claim; they recognized nothing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically Batmacumba the UK liberated the islands from conquest, not reconquered. Mabuska (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the conflict, Argentina still have claims on the Falklands. This can't be disputed. The international community has to accept a claim whether legal or not. Both claims on the territory are legitimate by international law. This is why it's disputed. The aftermath should be discussed elsewhere or create a new section based on facts and not conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.225.86 (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus that the text is unacceptable, in the form that it took when the RfC was opened. There also seems to be consensus that, if it were rewritten in such a way as to cite sufficient reliable sources, and if it were presented with due weight, it might be worth including. Therefore, someone should probably write a new version in such a way that it meets the concerns editors have expressed in the RfC; but the material should not be reinstated in its previous form. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Material claiming that a source of intelligence information was Russian satellite data intercepted by a Norwegian listening station has been included in the article. I suggest there a number of problems with this:

1. It is only covered in media outlets, with reference to a single TV report and a report on the TV show itself; effectively the same source. I cannot find reference to it in any other WP:SECONDARY source. Whilst we can look to a media report as a source, this isn't encouraged where it is the only source of data. We also look to other sources that are considered more reliable. I would suggest the current reference is inadequate.

2. Coverage in this article is disproportionate, it certainly doesn't merit two paragraphs.

3. The sensationalist terms used in the edit are completely inappropriate, with the suggestion is was somehow "vital" and let the British know where the Argentine navy was at all times. This contradicts just about every source known on the conflict, which details the problems the British had in locating the Argentine carrier. In any case the Argentine fleet withdrew to port after the sinking of the Belgrano and played no role in the conflict.

It has been removed on this basis several times, on each occasion removal was reverted with the comment "it is cited" "disagree with removal" but as far as I can see these discrepancies have not been addressed. I suggest that on the basis laid out above, this is very much WP:FRINGE material, the coverage here is disproportionate and it should be removed. WCMemail 20:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - A single TV source, not corroborated elsewhere, isn't enough. Remove it entirely. (Hohum @) 20:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Norwegian public broadcaster's story looks credible to me. I agree that the material referenced to it in the article was too long and over-stated the value of this information (the Google Translate version of the story says the intelligence was "fantastic valuable", not "vital"). A sentence on the topic - perhaps noting that the claims are not confirmed - seems worthwhile. The claim in the story that the information let the British monitor the location of Argentine ships in real time is highly unlikely though - unless the Soviets had tracking devices on the Argentine ships, this doesn't seem physically possible using the stated means. Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's covered in Bård Wormdal. Spionbasen. ISBN 9788253038223., along with much more coverage of Fauske II and SvalSat. The location incidentally is obviously valuable because of its convenience for downloading from polar orbiting satellites generally and also its proximity to the footprint for Soviet satellites aiming at their own polar downlink.
The USMC staff college seem to see the Norwegian TV program as worthy of citing http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA602142 Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The USMC refers to the exact same source cited here, the book you cited is by the same journalist in the TV programme [2] effectively it all comes down to the single source. WCMemail 23:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I can read the book, I can't find a stream of the TV program. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And? Are you disputing that its effectively the same source? WCMemail 06:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if the source is good, what's the problem? It's not like there's a large literature on the Norwegian intelligence services and their activities, and it's entirely possible that Norwegian-language sources would have been overlooked by English language writers. The report on the Norwegian state broadcaster should be a reliable source. The book was published by the Norwegian firm Pax Forlag which seems like a small scale but probably-credible outfit from the limited English-language information on it I can find - Google Books has a list of its other works here, but the titles are in Norwegian. The author appears to be an independent journalist, with all the pluses and minuses that entails though. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the information comes from the one source, a single independent journalist. As you note above some of the claims made in the source seem to be highly exaggerated eg the claim that the Norwegians enabled real time monitoring of Argentine ships. It certainly didn't warrant the two superlative laden paragraphs dedicated to it (a sentence at most) but given the doubts expressed about the reliability of claims made I'd suggest removal is best. WCMemail 11:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not real time, it's per orbit. It also relied on the Soviets tasking their satellite to keep looking at the Falklands (which was pretty likely anyway, mostly as they wanted to study British forces in action).
BTW, SvalSat and TrollSat are both based heavily on Wormdal's books and they're both GAs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm unfamiliar with the topic so wouldn't consider I could say yah or nay. That said IF it is retained it needs to be covered sparingly IOT give it due weight only (two paras does seem too much in this case). Also, unless it is verified and its significance confirmed by an objective source/s I think it would need to be qualified substantially. (Perhaps in the manner Nick mentions above?) Anotherclown (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - unless we find more than one source (and of course, books, tv shows etc. quoting the same source don't really count, it's just mass hysteria from one shout). This wasn't a war-winning factor, even if true. The RN had a lot of difficulties finding those pesky Argies - and vice versa - and there was no secret Russian magic that I ever heard of in the thirty five years since. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove A single not very notable source, or heavily prune and state as attributed claim. That famous (talkative?) figure 'A high ranking British military source', gets a whole paragraph at present. Hasn't the MoD fired him yet? Pincrete (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove At this point it just does not carry sufficient source weight. If another, independent mention can be found, it may justify inclusion. But it needs trimming even if found. Yngvadottir, do you speak Norwegian? Pretty please :) we may need a little translation help. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Quickly, have to go to work soon ... Yes, I can read it a bit. I see that Andy Dingley's reference is to a Master's thesis and that it cites the same NRK programme. NRK is a solid source, but looking at the archive of the source, I see that it hedges as to exactly how important the information was: "Hvorvidt krysseren ble senket på grunnlag av opplysningene som ble gitt fra Norge kan ingen i dag si med sikkerhet." - "How far the cruiser [General Belgrano] was sunk based on information that was obtained from Norway, no one can say with certainty today." The article does say that the programme used information from several central sources in the Norwegian defence forces, and does contain the single statement from the "high-ranking British military source" that characterises the intelligence as "fantastically useful". Out of time for now, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hugely useful comment. Seriously appreciate you taking the time to assist Yngvadottir! Simon Irondome (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up. OK, I'm back from work and have made a search. There is another version of the NRK programme summary online, which doesn't require using an archive: here. Some press reports from the time are also still available: Verdens Gang and Bergens Tidende. There's a trail of references to the information as fact, particularly among anti-war and anti-NATO activists, often coupling it with later similar assistance in the Gulf War: e.g.: 1, 2, 3. However, I was unable to find information in Google Books, in any language—which may just mean Google won't show it to me, or hasn't digitised the relevant material. I did not find anything that doesn't go back to that TV documentary. Also, what I believe is the most prestigious paper in Norway, Aftenposten, now has its archives sewn up tight to non-subscribers, so it is possible I can't see an analysis from them. And the Norwegian Wikipedia let me down by not having an article on the Fauske listening posts; I was hoping to look at their sources. But I don't find any sign anywhere of the information having been cast into doubt. My feeling is: it should be mentioned briefly as something that was presented by this programme. Also, I'm going to ping Arsenikk and Geschichte, both native speakers and both, I believe, with relevant subscriptions; they may well be able to find the information I can't, either corroborating or not, and unlike mine, their translations will be unimpeachable :-) By the way, are you all aware that the matter is covered, somewhat dramatically, at Aftermath of the Falklands War? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably clean that up as well. I remember now, when we split the article up as it got too big we put it in there, it was then reintroduced back here later. WCMemail 18:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per pinged request I have looked a bit into this case. I have watched the documentary in question, which can be seen here. The part about Fauske starts at 15:36 and from 17:30 there is extensive interviews with Matthew Aid in English. The documentary does not cite any sources, nor does it specify if it has been able to verify the information from multiple, independent and reliable sources. The documentary producers have not issued a methodology report to SKUP, which is common but in no way required for a documentary to be credible. I presume anonymous sources have to be used due to the nature of the intelligence facility. The Norwegian Intelligence Service does not comment on any of its activities from its various listening posts, which doesn't help either way. I checked with the newspaper archive Atekst, which has 14 articles on the connection between the Falklands War and Fauske. Although occurring in multiple large and reliable newspapers, all of these are referring back to the discoveries made in the Brennpunkt program. The documentary indicates that information gathered via Fauske from Soviet satellites could have been used to locate General Belgrano and contribute to its sinking. The interest of the documentary is in my view twofold. The first is telling tales of what the Norwegian Intelligence Service is up to through a few dramatic examples. Secondly it shows how the intelligence exchanges with the US and other NATO countries has made Norway an indirect participant in several wars, previously not known to the public. I can borrow the book Spionbasen from the library on Monday and can then see if Wormdal can shed addition methodological light on the issue. Arsenikk (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I interpret that there are three issues which need to be addressed: 1) Did the intelligence intercept take place? 2) If so, did the information contribute sigificantly to the sinking of the General 3) Is this factoid relevant for inclusion in this article? 1) Wormdal, who wrote Spionbasen, was not involved in the Brennpunkt program. The book mentions the Falklands issue in two paragraphs (pp. 131–132). The first mentions the General Belgrano issue, referenced to the Brennpunkt program and "Dutch intelligence". It is not specified if Wormdal is referring to his own contacts in Dutch intelligence, or if this was the basis for the Brennpunkt documentary. The second factoid, not mentioned in Brennpunkt and referenced solely to "Dutch intelligence", is that Soviet satellites picked up emergency positioning beacons used by British troops, with signals captured by Fauske 2 and resulting in the distressed being picked up. Matthew Aid comments on this in the documentary as well, but instead pointing to the need for Soviet "assistance" during the Gulf War to locate downed American pilots. Although a lot of the media outcry is of less importance, one of particular interest is this article in Forsvarets Forum (no). This is the official magazine of the Norwegian Armed Forces. Although it is editorially independent and cites the Brennpunkt program, it shows the high esteem the program is held with. Every newspaper and other media which recommunicates the findings in the documentary are evaluating the credibility of the documentary and finding it sufficiently reliable. This in itself strengthens the credibility, because many people have evaluated it as reliable. However, we are still not left with two independent and reliable sources which verify this information, so it is difficult to establish the issue as a positively known fact. 2) The documentary states that its source states that the British received the position of the General Belgrano. The same is the case in Spionbasen, where it is (citing "Dutch intelligence") stated that the information was sent to Britain. Neither source states anything about if the British used or needed this source to locate the Argentinian ship. Arsenikk (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically illiterate questions, only directly related to the RfC. Would not simple human-intelligence tell the UK that the Belgrano had sailed with a full load of soldiers? Would such sophisticated technology as Fauske really be needed to locate something as large as the Belgrano and its 'protectors'? Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the question was of the fact of her leaving port, with all the major units of the AN, but more of a question of locating her position while at sea. It still seems like yesterday (to me anyway) but we sometimes forget how long ago 82 was in terms of technology we now take for granted, especially in the military sphere. Cheers. Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but of course knowing something has sailed, and its probable destination, has always been a huge advantage. I just wasn't sure how implausible the assumption was that the UK would even need this info. Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue wasn't one of detecting Belgrano, the passive sonar on the Churchill class submarine could do so at significant ranges. All of the Argentine warships deployed were detected by submarines. The carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2) for example. was detected by HMS Splendid (S106) but not attacked as she couldn't visually identify the target. The carrier group then ran over a region of shallow water where Splendid could not follow and she lost track. There was concern with the Conqueror could also lose the Belgrano if she ran over the shallow Burdwood bank. So in answer to the original question, no the listening station at Fauske wouldn't have been needed to find Belgrano. However, the geology of the South Atlantic could frustrate the ability of submarines to maintain a track. Contact was lost with the carrier at a critical juncture that made the British Task Force vulnerable - and with good signals intelligence the British knew exactly what had been planned. The Argentines used commercial swiss encryption machines made by the company Crypto AG, so GCHQ was adept at decrypting their signals traffic in near real time. WCMemail 23:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the clarification. What is still not clear to me is what role Fauske is alleged to have played, since most sources credit GCHQ with the ability to decode. I am wondering whether the claim is that Norway simply continued data-sharing with the UK. If so, the present text is not so much an extraordinary claim, as a rather mundane claim phrased in an extraordinary manner, ie UK continued to get data from sources with which it had pre-existing arrangements, which may have been very useful to the UK. The RfC question remains of course what weight to give to this source, but in the absence of clear info as to the nature of the info/data, (beyond being told by an 'anon' that it was 'incredibly vital') I am even less inclined to give much weight to it. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Falklands War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claims about the thinking of British representatives at the UN

I added a "citation needed" tag in the middle of the following text in the Sinking of HMS Sheffield section:

That said, the British did not expect the Argentinians to accept this final package. It was a gamble, the calculation being that Argentina would reject it and hence be seen to be the unreasonable party[citation needed], reinforcing in the eyes of the world the legitimacy of subsequent British action.

Irondome wanted to discuss it, so here I am. This is a straightforward case of claims that need to be sourced. Wikipedia isn't the place for people to give their own interpretation of historical events. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor; perhaps someone else can provide links to the relevant Wikipedia policy article(s). I can find them with a little research, if needed. jej1997 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freedman does comment that the British didn't expect the Argentines to accept the final package. However, the real cause of the failure of talks was the Argentine position hardened at a point where the British had compromised so much they could go no further. I don't believe any of the content in Freedman would support such a cynical view as that above. It does appear to be opinion rather than fact and I would suggest the text is modified to reflect what is in the Official Histories. WCMemail 15:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok WCM. Do you want to work on it with me Jej1997? Give us something to do. Wee, what is the best available source online that you would recommend for restructuring? Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a good source online I'm afraid, the best coverage is in Freedman's Official Histories. Its covered in depth in Chapter 25. WCMemail 19:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without a verifiable and reliable source such an obviously OR and opinionated statement has no purpose on this site. Mabuska (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F743101368
No tags for this post.