Talk:ARA General Belgrano/Archive 2

Incorrect and out-of-date statement regarding number of ships sunk by submarine since WW2
"She is the only ship ever to have been sunk in anger by a nuclear-powered submarine[1] and the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II, the first being the Indian frigate INS Khukri by the Pakistani Hangor during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War." North Korea sunk a South Korean war ship not that long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.72.26 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sinking you're referring to was carried out by a non-nuclear submarine, and thus doesn't affect the statement in this article. --IxK85 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision needed
Parts of this article read like an apologetic propaganda piece about how the sinking of the Belgrano was justified, legal and almost an act of heroism. A thorough revision is needed, I've tagged some bits that need careful examination. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To avoid being accused of WP:Tag bombing I've removed some tags and left only the ones I consider totally necessary to mark the most relevant conflictive points. Specially the Legal situation section needs a complete overhaul, it reads as if it had been written by Thatcher herself.
 * I'll wait a few days to hear from other editors before I make any major changes to the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to be implying that the sinking wasn't justified or legal, a stance which is quite baffling. There is no international law, treaty or charter that prohibits the sinking of enemy warships during a time of conflict.
 * 'Though the ship was outside the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action' is tagged as needing a citation, when it's clearly explained by the following 23rd April message that the British delivered through the Swiss embassy to the Argentine government.
 * I also fail to see how 'The modified rules of engagement permitted the engagement of Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking.' has any sort of bias to it. Rules of engagement are directives issued by a country that affects only it's only armed forces or troops under it's command. Since the British issued a directive saying that would, without prejudice, take action beyond the exclusion zone, then the sinking clearly was within British rules of engagement. That is irrefutable and indisputable. You clearly have some sort of anti-Thatcher agenda, Wikipedia is not the forum for you to vent that. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The sinking of the ship is in fact regarded as a war crime and thus not justified nor legal by several people, so I don't see what you find "baffling" about this.
 * "Though the ship was outside the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action". This needs a source or to be re-written. "Both sides understood"? Says who? A statement like that needs an official Argentinian source that clearly states that it was understood, otherwise it's just WP:OR and WP:SYN. The existence of the quoted message does not mean that Argentina "understood" or "agreed" with what it implied.
 * "The modified rules of engagement permitted the engagement of Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking.". Says who? If you have a proper source for this then please add it to the section. Otherwise its just WP:OR and has no place here, a statement needs to be sourced. We can't just unilaterally decide such a sensible matter, we need sources that explicitly say this. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not original research, it's a basic understanding of the English language. The British April 23 message is the modified rules of engagement. That is sourced. It clearly states that UK forces are permitted by the UK government to strike outside of the exclusion zone. What about that do you not understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well ignore that, the points moot now anyway. Yeah, I'm happy with the changes, although I've gone and re-worded a few sentences. I agree with the WP:OR tag, that bit needs some verification.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made some slight modifications that would requiere no adittion of more sources to the section, except one I find a bit WP:OR. Please tell me if you find them acceptable. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Althoug I might add, I never disputed that people claim that the sinking was illegal or a war crime, I say that there is no credible evidence that it was nor do any creble legal experts purport such a view (angry relatives hardly count). As your second source states 'Even the Argentine Defence Ministry, in a report in 1994, concluded that the Belgrano's fate was `a legal act of war'. The idea that the British breaking their own exclusion zone (that they didn't even do, as their April 23 message made clear) is some how an international war crime is beyond laughable. The legal action mentioned by the second source was by the way dismissed by the ECHR. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the last sentence and added the position of an Argentinian politician on the matter to bring some balance to both views, please tell me what you think.
 * Do you have the original source for Even the Argentine Defence Ministry, in a report in 1994, concluded that the Belgrano's fate was "a legal act of war" statement? If you do we could add it, it seems like very relevant information. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I wouldn't even know where to begin to try and find that though. I can't speak or read a word of Spanish either, so I fear that's well beyond my capabilities. I suppose I could e-mail the BBC and ask them about it, but being a twelve year old article and them being the BBC, I'm not exactly crossing my fingers--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's actually another source further down the article [1 ] regarding an Argentine government admission that the sinking was legal, and also evidence supporting the British claim that the Belgrano was indeed on a pincer movement and not sailing back to port, although again, it's only a secondary source from the press. I dunno if anyone would be willing to look into tracking down the original Argentine report?--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The article you mentioned also states that ion 1994 the defence ministry of Argentina referred to the sinking as a "a legal act of war" but it also doesn't give even the name of who said it. I'll try looking into it to see what I can find. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the tags concerend and to be honest, the person adding the tags could have found the citations themselves. Two sproing to mind - the decommissioning of the ship in 1946 and the role of Clive Ponting.  IMHO, an editor who tags this sort of information rather than  finding citations themselves is not really helping the artcile (or Wikipedia). Martinvl (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin, I added a few tags at the beginning but then removed them and left only the few I felt 100% necessary. The two you mention I did not add but if you have the sources then please add them so we can remove those tags also. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have re-added the tag "better source needed" to the sentence:


 * In August 1994, an official Argentine Defence Ministry report was released which described the sinking of the Belgrano as "a legal act of war", explaining that "acts of war can be carried out in all of the enemy's territory" and "they can also take place in those areas over which no state can claim sovereignty, in international waters"


 * I did this because I can't confirm this statement in any way (neither can I access the url provided). I've searched both in English and Spanish and haven't found a single mention of this event anywhere. Even the official position of the Argentine government says nothing about this. All the news I found relating to the Belgrano sinking say that Argentina considers this a crime of war, only some ex-navy millitary men (like Bonzo) argued that it was a lawful act of war. This is an important point because it states the official position of Argentina and I believe should be sourced accordingly. If anyone can come up with a better source for this (at least one that says the name of the minister of denfense who supposedly released the report) please add it to the article. If no good source can be found I suggest the sentence should be removed because it creates a false impression of "official acceptance" of the lawfulness of the event. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A news report in a serious newspaper are acceptable as a reliable source. The requirement of verifiability is that anyone can access it to check, not that it's easy. In practice, The Times Digital Archive is available to members of many libraries and if you send me your email address I will happily send you an image of the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A news report in a serious newspaper is acceptable as a reliable source. The requirement of verifiability is that anyone can access it to check, not that it's easy. In practice, The Times Digital Archive is available to members of many libraries and if you send me your email address I will happily send you an image of the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, on the off-chance I checked The Guardian as well, and it turns out there is an article on page 7 of The Guardian of 10 August 1994 written by Vivek Chaudhary which states: "A report by the Argentinian Ministry of Defence, released in Buenos Aires on Monday, ... adds, however, that the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser the General Belgrano was not a war crime". The author of the report is said to be the "armed forces auditor, General Eugenio Miari". While The Times is generally regarded as a centre-right newspaper, The Guardian is on the left of British politics and was firmly opposed to the Thatcher government. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the reputability of The Times but as I've said, I can't find a confirmation for this statement anywhere which I find odd. Could you post an image of the article (like here for example: http://www.postimage.org) so all editors can see it please? That would be great, perhaps one of us can scavenge some more information to recover a more "original" source for this. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you also post the link to the Guardian article? I checked the site but it only shows me articles up to the year 1998. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'v found a book (accessible here) where it is stated that:

''...relatives of the heroes of the Cruiser "ARA General Belgrano" reported the sinking of the ship as a war crime. The Auditor General [Eugenio Miari] dismissed the complaint and refers to the sinking in his statement as legal act of war "unless such sinking had occurred for non-military purposes" (meaning for political purposes).''

According to this book there was never an official statement but a dismissal by Brig. Miari of a report, by relatives of dead soldiers in the Belgrano sinking, to denounce the sinking as a war crime. This is why I feel a more "original" source is needed, a lot can be misinterpreted or missed through these articles. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If Gaba could convert this URL into a proper citation, it would help. The internet is full of citations about Clive Ponting - this one for instance. Could Gaba please convert this into a proper citation as well?
 * Coudl I also take this opportunity to point out to Gaba that a dead link is still a citation provided that it was in place on the access date. Moreover, if the rest of the citation is still good, then the reader can check still check it for themnselves. Martinvl (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Martin you'll have to explain a bit more what you are asking me because I'm not sure I'm following you. The cn tag regarding Clive Pointing was added May 2012 by another editor, not by me. What should I convert into a citation?
 * About the dead link, are you referring to this edit of mine? I added the cn tag not only because it was a dead link and a new one was needed, but because this bit "as did the Argentine government in 1994" was (is) inaccurate. In any case the issue with that tag is solved now since the sentence has been re-phrased. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Martin, Ive added the second source you provided and removed the cn tag for Clive Pointing (though I reiterate: I didn't add it in the first place) Is the state of that paragraph acceptable to you? About the first source you point me to: I have no idea what I should use it for. Could you clarify this to me please? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Argentine statement
I see that an editor has added the statement made by the Argentine Military Junta. This states:

''That, in the face of this new attack, Argentina reiterates to the national and global public its adherence to the ceasefire mandated by the Security Council on the mentioned resolution. It has only limited to respond to Britain's attacks, without using force beyond what is necessary to ensure the defense of their territories.''

In actual fact, Argentine forces had actively sought to launch a major naval assault on the British task force the previous day. As the Belgrano was part of this attack, should this not be mentioned in the interests of neutrality? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to try to avoid a he-says, she-says type narrative. A better solution would be to have material explaining the war situation at the time, followed by material on how the sinking unfolded. We can then discuss the immediate and longer-term responses to these events. The material on the Junta's response seems a bit wordy, but if trimmed down and placed in an appropriate section should be included. The Junta was of course making stuff up throughout the war, which contributed to its rapid downfall shortly afterwards. I doubt that many Argentinians then or now take the statement seriously. It also would be good if we could draw on material from political scientists and the like which discusses how the sinking was viewed overall in the UK and Argentina as this would put the dueling politicians in context (it seems that various Argentine governments have blustered a bit about the sinking in response to public pressure, but never followed up on threats of legal action while the navy regards it as a legit action, and the UK governments have always accepted the attack as legitimate while there's a lingering strand of public unease about the affair - but that's just my interpretation). Tons has been written on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Naval outcome
Having read the article through a couple of times, I think it lacks any perspective on the effect that the sinking had on the rest of the war; ie that the Argentinian fleet played no major role in the rest of the conflict, and that carrier-borne aircraft had to operate from land bases at the limit of their range. All of the "Aftermath" section concerns political judgements over the leagal and moral issues, which while desperately important is not the whole story. I was thinking of a single sentence using this source. Would that be possible without appearing partisan? Your thoughts please. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. --Langus (t) 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Location
Article states, "The Belgrano, which was outside the exclusion zone to the north, was ordered south". However the location of the ship is clearly to the south. The article suggests Belgrano was heading towards the exclusion zone, which is false.149.241.251.109 (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ombudsman statement
Nick-d I see you removed the ombudsman statement from the Legal controversy section, which I find correct since I believe it suits better the Aftermath section. I think it is important to show the conflicting views between the Argentine government (represented by the statements of the ombudsman and the President) and the Argentine military (represented by the statements of Bonzo, etc..) regarding the event. The ombudsman is not likely to be an "expert on the international laws covering warfare" but neither is the President nor most of the people quoted in the article, so I really don't think this should be an issue. Please tell me what you think. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The opinion of the President of Argentina is obviously relevant - it's the head of state; the ombudsman of a city - I don't think so - neither an expert nor notable enough. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it's not just the ombudsman of any city, it's the city of Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina and it's largest city. It is quite an important political position and the statement reflects the view of the Argentine government in contrast with the view of some members of the Argentine navy (at the time). In any case, if the majority of editors believe it to be an irrelevant statement, I'll gladly take it out. Regards.Gaba p (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the views of a city ombudsman are relevant. The only views that should be included are those of senior government officials and senior legal experts like the Attorney General or whatever the equivalent Argentine position is. Frankly the ombudsman's opinion has no greater standing in the debate than mine does.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree. The statement by the Ombudsman is political grand standing and nothing more.  Its introduction here is nothing more that soap boxing.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd posted a comment here at the time I removed the statement, but I seem to have forgotten to press enter before closing the tab! The ombudsman appears to have local duties (though from the public defender's website it appears that she also travels internationally a bit to meet with human rights groups), and unless she has some expertise on the topic not related to her current role, I'm not seeing a reason to include this. We wouldn't include the views of whoever the equivalent person in London is for the same reasons. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well, following the majority consensus here I've removed the statement from the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the same logic applies to this as applied to the statements on the Reconquista city website discussed a while back (Archive no. 2 I think) - not a relevant, notable, expert source. FOARP (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Literally only in post-war Britain
...Would this be a "controversy." I am not one to complain in that manner but the only controversy here is why some people think that a submarine job is to just ignore enemy warships. The whole point of submarine warfare is to sink enemy warships. The only controversy that has every arisen over submarine warfare is whether or not they should be allowed to sink merchant ships, the act of doing that would be a war crime, but sinking a enemy cruiser? Nope, not a war crime no matter where it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.11.49 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing edits to the article, not to engage in debates about the topic. Ashmoo (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is lamentable that this is still regarded as controversial in some quarters. However, a complete, properly referenced Wiki article is the best remedy that we can provide for this problem. Once people take in the very simple facts surrounding the case (e.g., both the Captain of the Belgrano and his commanding officer saw the Belgrano as being on a war mission, and regarded the sinking of the Belgrano as a legitimate act of war) they can see that, in reality, it is as uncontroversial as the sinking of a warship during a war can be. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Threat of an ICJ suit
At what point may we note that this threat was never carried out? It's been more than a year and nothing's happened, which isn't surprising, as the ICJ doesn't deal with this kind of case anyway - the International Criminal Court is the one that would hear a trial for 'war crimes', not the ICJ. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at the source of the claim that an ICJ suit may be in the offing, it appears to be a website called "Dias De Historia". Is this a news site or a blog? See here: http://www.diasdehistoria.com.ar/content/la-presidenta-conden%C3%B3-la-guerra . The exact wording is this:


 * "Según fuentes de la Cancillería, "es una posibilidad" que el Gobierno impulse una demanda ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya contra Gran Bretaña. Históricamente, la Armada consideró ese hecho una "acción de guerra" y por ello el Estado había desestimado cualquier acción penal. Ahora, la Cancillería lo analiza."


 * It seems the wording of the source is somewhat weaker than what is stated in the article, which is that "the Argentine government was also reported to be considering filing a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice against the UK". Instead it seems the source only said that "it is a possibility" that the government might do that. Considering that no suit has happened, is this source credible?FOARP (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Argentinian government is unlikely to start an action simply because legally they don't have a leg to stand on. The conflict was started by their predecessor in an unprovoked de facto act of war (the Invasion of the Falklands) and so in the eyes of most judges Argentina would seem to have gotten no less than what they deserved - however unfortunate that may have been for the Argentinian sailors concerned.


 * The 'exclusion zone' - despite the prominence that was given to it at the time by the press - is irrelevant, as it was unilaterally declared by the UK and it was therefore within the UK's remit to withdraw or amend it at any time. IIRC it was only intended as a warning to Argentinian and other civilian shipping to stay clear of the area, as they were likely to be in danger. Certainly any Argentinian warship would have been considered 'fair game' anywhere.


 * The phrase 'if you can't stand the heat ... ' comes to mind.


 * ... or, in simple terms, don't complain if you start a fight and the other side then beats the c**p out of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the Britain honestly didn't even NEED to proclaim an exclusion zone to begin with. 74.103.72.212 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I see there's been a little edit-reversion going on over this point. I agree with WCM - if you're going to include the 2012 Argentine speculation about a law suit before the ICJ, then you have to include the context that this never actually occurred. Either include both, or include neither - you can't say "Wiki shouldn't include things that never happened" as a reason not to mention that no ICJ case was filed and then insist that the speculation about an ICJ case should be mentioned. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * More a reasoned discussion than a revert war. When I dug deeper, the cites didn't support the edit.  The Argentine Government hadn't threatened to take this to the ICJ, a pressure group had demanded they did.  The other cite was a blog and not a WP:RS.  We've had a long term edit supported only by idle speculation in a blog. But I agree with the general point, the article shouldn't include a things that never actually happened.  WCM email 11:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just speaking of my own edit. The context that this never actually occurred is pretty much the rest of the article, which is making this point over and over. I didn't see the need to repeat it again while mentioning the Argentinian threat of a suit. Ashmoo (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Belgarno, second choice, target for the RN.
Robin Harris, Thatchers speechwriter suggests that the priority target for the RN to take the Argentine Navy out of the war was the carrier 25 de Mayo and that the RN SSN's were fully authorised to take it. ,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.64.48 (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that appears in the British official history as well. From memory, the submarine hunting the 25 de Mayo experienced mechanical problems and failed to make contact with the carrier. It's not correct though that General Belgrano was a "second choice" target - the British were seeking to destroy any Argentine ship which posed a realistic and impending threat to their carrier battle group. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick, thats close but not quite right. The sub hunting HMS Splendid the carrier found it but identified it via passive sonar, the War Cabinet insisted on visual identification before they would allow the navy to fire.  This was impossible due to a fog bank and then the carrier group moved into an area of shallow water in which the sub couldn't trail and lost contact.  One of the reasons why the Conqueror decision was made so quickly was the fear of a repeat if the Belgrano group made a dash for shallow water over the Burdwood (?) Bank.  Another factor it was Conqueror that had mechanical problems with its comms gears, which meant it couldn't deploy the VLF antenna.  WCM email 07:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for that. I think that I've also read that the British government was more comfortable with attacking the carrier as it was expected that this would result in fewer Argentine casualties given that the ship was judged to be unlikely to sink quickly and had more escorts. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the facts of the case, this article certainly appears to have been written at the very least by a british person, from the british point of view; at the worst it amounts to near propoganda. All appears to be included to vindicate the decision to sink the Belgrano, and to paint a picture that it was good legal and generally ok.

Simply written without an open mind and from a predetermined viewpoint....beware!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.242.181 (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, how terrible that the article reflects the view put forward in authoritative, verifiable sources like the Argentine navy, the Captain of the Belgrano Hector Bonzo, Admiral Allara etc.etc. and not just a bunch of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories FOARP (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on ARA General Belgrano. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014120642/http://www.raf.mod.uk:80/falklands/bb1.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/bb1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501045212/http://www.falklands.info:80/history/82timeline.html to http://falklands.info/history/82timeline.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321055514/http://www.histarmar.com.ar:80/Remolcadores/OFFshore/SeacorLenga.htm to http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Remolcadores/OFFshore/SeacorLenga.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

C-4
Wasn't General Belgrano designated "C-4" (I guess that's a pennant number)? This article doesn't say so, but other language Wikipedia articles (Polish and Italian) do mention it. It's relevant, I think, because the jolly roger that Conqueror flew featured an outline of the ship with C4 written on her hull. That said, I don't know of a reference off hand that does definitively say her number was C-4. 87.115.60.38 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that the carrier is listed as ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2), and Belgrano's contemporaries were ARA Nueve de Julio (C-5), ARA La Argentina (C-3), ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (C-2), and ARA Almirante Brown (C-1). This article is therefore unique, in that the title doesn't include the pennant number. It should really be moved to ARA General Belgrano (C-4) (which for some reason is a redirect). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As this is the second vessel named ARA General Belgrano, I'm inclined to agree with you. This really should be the redirect.  Regards, WCM email 21:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Done! -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). f eminist  15:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

ARA General Belgrano → ARA General Belgrano (C-4) – There are two ships of this name, one from 1896 and this one. In October 2016, a brief discussion agreed the move. Parsecboy moved it back recently based on "lack of discussion". This should be a none controverisial and routine move, since as noted in the discussion its common to use the pennant number or year in ship titles. WCM email 13:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the move was reverted because this ship is a primary topic, hence the "C-4" disambiguator is not needed, and I agree with that. This is by far the better known and more notable of the two Belgranos, and there is no need to move this article. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - what he said. Because of its manner of sinking, this ship is one of the most famous of the 20th century, and I presume it is the primary topic. Being a primary topic supersedes the other naming consideration invoked, I think. (In fact if anything going the other way and moving this page to just "General Belgrano" could possibly be justified (I'm not actually suggesting that )). Herostratus (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In the UK, the term "General Belgrano" immediately conjours up the ship, and that would be a contender for PTOPIC for the name. However, when weighing all the criteria for a PTOPIC I'm quite sure Manuel Belgrano, the guy the ship was named after, and major figure in the Argentine independence, would be as much of a major contender. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My thought also. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, this article got 12.7k views in the last month, and its namesake got 8.8k - so more, but not the widest of margins. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough though, over 6000 of those edits took place just yesterday. Against a long term average of under 100 views per day. I wonder if it was on the main page, or linked from elsewhere for a day. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he was in yesterday's selected anniversaries. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow... based on those pageviews (and if you discount the one-day spike), a reasonable case could be made for moving this page to just "General Belgrano". I dunno... I guess while Manuel Belgrano is not that notable in the English-speaking world, he was important in a world-history sense, so I wouldn't do it. Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per arguments above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is clearly the primary topic, and even if it was only the slightly more sought article, there is only one other ship with this name, which can be handled with a simple hatnote. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose See HMS Victory as an example of a very well known warship where other warships of that name existed. PatGallacher (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARA General Belgrano. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.diputados.gov.ar/dependencias/dcomisiones/periodo-124/124-373.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517050451/http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/documentos/dictadura/hundimiento_del_general_belgrano_comunicados_oficiales.php to http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/documentos/dictadura/hundimiento_del_general_belgrano_comunicados_oficiales.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete Warship
I find it curious and interesting that this article says absolutely nothing about the Belgrano being totally obsolete long before 1982. How clever to divide the article on the ship into two, which then conceals the fact this ship was completed and commissioned in the USN in 1938, before the Second World War even started! It was almost 44 years old in 1982 and plainly should have been, at best, a museum ship; its sister ship, the ex-USS Boise, had already even been scrapped in 1979. It was obviously no threat at all to any British forces; it was only a threat to its own crew. The speed of 32.5 knots that it was supposedly capable of according to the article was when it was new; there should be some effort to find out what speed it really was able to manage by 1982: not that speed, I bet. It hardly seems to have been updated at all; it still bore its original pre-World War II armament, apparently. So I find the British sinking of this antique relic of yesteryear somewhat embarrassing to both sides, Argentina because it put the crew stupidly at risk in a thoroughly useless coffin ship, and Britain because, out of a desire to recover lost imperial glory or to score a hit committed a rather pathetic and unnecessary act against an already-defeated opponent. Because it was a war, albeit undeclared, the sinking can't exactly be held a war crime, unless one considers the whole British war to be such a crime; that is, the Belgrano sinking can't be singled out. But it was at least imprudent, and redounds to no one's credit.LCalpurniusPiso (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "It was obviously no threat at all to any British forces" - can you find a credible source stating this? Since both the Argentines who commanded it and the British who opposed it believe that it was a threat, on what basis do you say otherwise?
 * "a rather pathetic and unnecessary act against an already-defeated opponent." - again, can you find a credible, reliable, authoritative source stating that Argentina was "already-defeated"? Since they patently had not been defeated at this point (the war continued for almost three months afterwards) I doubt it.
 * You are essentially asking for the article to reflect your opinion, which appears to be quite baseless, without at all substantiating it. FOARP (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it best to simply ignore this, unless it started disruption to the article. WCM email 14:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The Atlantic Conveyor was a civilian ship crewed by civilian merchant seamen and no-one on the British side complains about the Argentinians sinking it. Sinking an enemy's ships is quite normal in war, of-which the British have considerable experience.


 * The Belgrano was an armed, commissioned, enemy warship. What else do people expect the British to have done. Of course they sank it - the Royal Navy has a 500-year record of sinking enemy warships. If the Argentinians hadn't wanted it sunk they should have been more careful with it, and kept it in port. Better still, they should have avoided conflict in the first place, and not invaded the Falklands. None of the Falkland Islanders asked them to.


 * BTW, the RNTF Mk VIII torpedo that sank the Belgrano was itself designed in 1925 thus making it around a decade more 'obsolete' than the ship Conqueror fired it at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It had six-inch guns, and assuming that those still worked, or some of them worked (probably), then that is worthwhile hitting power. If it could get in range, which it would have done eventually if the British hadn't stopped it at some point. Herostratus (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretty obviously Belgrano's battery of 15 radar-laid 6-inch guns would have had a terrible effect on the unarmoured modern warships of the British fleet, never mind the troop transports QE2 and Canberra, if she ever got within range. (HMS Belfast's nine 6-inch guns did the German battleship Scharnhorst no favours at all in the Battle of the North Cape in 1943.) The Exocet missiles of Belgrano's destroyer escorts were a not insignificant threat as well. Of course the British were going to sink the Belgrano and so take out the task group, if they could.

But the sinking is only controversial because of the ridiculous, disproportionate death toll. Perhaps the 'reliable sources' don't allow it, but it would help if the article could explain the death toll in some way. A number of small, unarmoured British warships were hit by Exocet missiles (with 300lb warheads) and air-dropped 500lb bombs, and some of them burned, and sank, and the death toll in each case was in the region of 20. Admittedly the Mark 8 torpedo with its 800lb warhead was a hefty weapon, but that still doesn't explain the absurd death toll on board the Belgrano. Martin Middlebrook, in The Fight For The 'Malvinas', gives this reason (p.110, Penguin edition, 1990): 'The nearby magazines were just aft of the hit but did not explode; that was the only good fortune going. The torpedo easily pierced the side of the ship before exploding in the after machine room, wiping out the watch on duty there. But the effects of the explosion spread much further. Just above the machinery room were two messes -- one for petty officers and one for senior seamen -- and, then, on the next deck up, were two dining halls, and a general relaxation area called the "Soda Fountain". These areas were crowded, particularly the Soda Fountain and the dining halls, because the watches were being changed at 4.00 pm. The blast of the explosion had to find an outlet and most of it went upwards, blowing out these compartments and leaving a 20-yard-long hole in the main deck. There were no survivors from these places; it was later estimated that 275 men -- 85 per cent of the total dead -- were in this area.'

All right. So, by happenstance, Conqueror's torpedo struck just aft of the main belt armour and penetrated at the very worst time of day, just before the change of watch at 4pm, when the other ranks' mess decks were at their most crowded with the men of the old and the new watch coming and going.

But... why were the crew still messing as normal, as if they were on a peacetime cruise? Why weren't they at action stations and closed up? The whole point of going to action stations is to prevent that kind of disaster. So why on earth were the mess decks that full of sailors just lounging about as if nothing were the matter and nothing serious was going on at all? Because -- along with the escorts' failure to realise what had happened -- that might explain why Belgrano lost 323 men. Unlike several of the British ships sunk by heavy weapons, Belgrano didn't burn (and fire is the fighting sailor's worst fear). And the magazines, protected by old-school armoured bulkheads, didn't explode. And the sinking wasn't sudden. Captain Bonzo only ordered 'Abandon ship' after 20 minutes and, as you can see from the famous photo, the ship was still afloat a long time after that, when the life rafts had been launched. Belgrano was lucky. Yet still this disproportionate death toll. There must be a reason, and it's presumably the failure to keep action stations in a combat area (and Captain Bonzo knew he was lawfully liable to attack anywhere in the South Atlantic, in or out of the 'exclusion zone'), but it never seems to be explained. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * One of Conqueror's three torpedoes missed the Belgrano, instead carrying on and hitting one of the escorts but failing to explode. This caused the escorts (quite rightly) to withdraw from the area. The torpedo striking was clearly heard aboard the escort, and a large dent in the hull was subsequently discovered when the ship was later dry-docked.


 * In the Southern Hemisphere the seasons are reversed, so at the time there was the impending onset of winter, so the sea would have been cold, leading unprotected men in it to suffer from exposure. Unfortunately, the survivors were swept further southwards by the prevailing current.


 * BTW, the Argentinian Navy had had long and friendly relations with Britain and the Royal Navy but these had been allowed to wither-and-die by Argentina with the arise of the Argentinian right-wing military dictatorships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.248 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II
Should this paragraph:

"She is the only ship to have been sunk during military operations by a nuclear-powered submarine[1] and the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II, the first being the Indian frigate INS Khukri, which was sunk by the Pakistani Submarine PNS Hangor during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War."

Mention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

A South Korean-led official investigation carried out by a team of international experts from South Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Sweden[2][3] presented a summary of its investigation on 20 May 2010, concluding that the warship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo[4][5] fired by a midget submarine.[6] The conclusions of the report resulted in significant controversy within South Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.250.90 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

" Argentine response" section
Is it necessary to repeat the entire Argentine communique verbatim? Why not just summarise it? Unless we're planning to repeat the UK's communique on this subject verbatim as well... FOARP (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think summarising any communique risks creating wp.or. Inserting the UK communique sounds more balanced. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Intelligence
Did someone else here hear about Operation Rubikon ?

The NSA and the BND could read the secret naval communication of the argentinians, who used compromized Crypto AG cyper maschines. They passed on the location of the argentine fleet to the british. Whatch the movie from minute 28. unfortunately German only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzosft (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And so? The UK had broken the Argentine naval codes years before, they'd also broken the Crypto AG machines, which were based on the same technology as the original Enigma machines.  This information wasn't used to find the Argentine ships, they were found using passive sonar.  A lot of myth making in that documentary, it wasn't anywhere near as important as they are claiming. I support the removal of this self-promotional material given it's exagerrated and overblown. WCM email 15:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Earlier today I reverted this edit removing the monicker "notorious" from the description of the Sun's "Gotcha" headline. The same user has tried this before ,,,,, and edit warred to try and force their edit into the article despite being reverted by multiple editors. Given the past history I posted a 3RR warning and also explained their use of attribution wasn't needed, given that sources universally condemn the headline  both have been removed. They have persisted in claiming attribution is needed, I also pointed out that at Falklands War there are multiple sources showing this is appropriate. Bringing it to talk for wider input. WCM email 17:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Well known" is possible but on this occasion I see no reason not to describe the headline as notorious: there are plenty of quality sources that decribe it as such. Google scholar this - [Thatcherite heroes. The fictional representation of the new emerging class of the nineteen eighties] (p9). I think as it currently reads it is wrong - it is unnecessary to say "according to the FT and the Guardian..." because there are so many other sources that do the same. You only need to specifically name a source if there is a good reason to do so, which here there is not. Usually 'notorious' would be an obvious POV, but not here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with all points by Roger 8 Roger. (Hohum @ ) 09:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with you both, so would you agree there is no consensus for this change - which still is in the article. WCM email 10:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I maintained use of ‘notorious’, but added two sources for the term. For some reason the sources were removed. I suggest that the sources (Guardian and FT) are worth having. GardenGlobetrotter (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, hang on. Are we saying that the attribution to these two sources implies that they are the only people who see the headline as ‘notorious’? If so, we could simply amend the phrasing to ‘widely seen as notorious’, with several attributions (which are easy to find). GardenGlobetrotter (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)