Talk:Operation Harpoon (1942)

Rank Curteis
Dear Sirs, we're working at the Battaglia di mezzo giugno in the Italian Wikipedia, and we've some problems about the rank of Alban Curteis. I see you've written "Vice-Admiral" in this voice, but have you got some references? Thank you. --Zerosei (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Zerosei, one of the most comprehensive sources about the war in the Mediterranean, Greene & Massignani's The Naval War in the Mediterranean indicates that he hold the rank of Vice-Admiral at the time of Operation Harpoon (see page 235). I know that other sources use the bare term "Admiral" as early as 1941, but according to his service record (see this website) he was made Admiral in 1945, upon his retirement from the Royal Navy.--Darius (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Zerosei (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

sinking of the Bedouin
The image is entitled the sinking of HMS Bedouin. Clearly Bedouin would have been unable to operate her AA armament with such an extreme degree of list yet, we know that she shot down the aircraft that sank her, so the image must show Bedouin after the torpedo hit.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct --Zerosei (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

My only concern regarding this pic was that your otherwise reasonable claim had been based just on common sense, and not on reliable sources.

I found, however, a 1988 Italian seminar which supports your point of view (Le Fonti per La Storia Militare Italiana in Etá Contemporanea, p. 130). In few words, the paper states that the photo was taken by a Macchi C.202 fighter just a couple of minutes after the torpedo struck HMS Bedouin. There are a number of issues (whether or not the shadow on the hull is the actual torpedo hit, whether or not the ship took water and was listing before the air strike) that are still in question, but these are too long for a talk page, and somewhat off topic.--Darius (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

P/S: Captain Scurfield claims in his posthumous memories that the SM-79 was shot down by a single machine gun, thus the degree of list at the time is immaterial.--Darius (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we have to use our commonsense sometimes, to avoid inserting obviously incorrect info into an article, whether it is sourced or not; for example if an article shows a picture of an aircraft carrier sinking, but the caption states that it is a battleship, do we include that information? The degree of list shown makes manning even an MG impossible.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, It was not "obviously incorrect info" since the former caption reads "The destroyer HMS Bedouin, crippled by gunfire from the cruisers of the Italian navy's 7th Division. She was finished off by an aerial torpedo some hours later." which is entirely true. A caption doesn't necessarily describes exactly what the photo shows (i.e. the same caption could be used in a photo showing HMS Bedouin undamaged and at full speed, see the image and caption of the cruiser Trento on the infobox of Operation Vigorous). Off course, it would be incorrect info if the picture shows another destroyer or a carrier, but this is not the case, thus that of the type of ship is not a good example. I think the caption only needed a minor rewording to avoid ambiguity.


 * Using common sense is not always the easy way out; per common sense, we can confuse a whale with a fish.--Darius (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
Information in the infobox should reflect the article and be cited there, making citations in the infobox redundant.Keith-264 (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith. The double "result" entry in the military infobox doesn't contradict Template:Infobox military conflict page. "Operation Harpoon" involved at least three phases, the 15 June "Battle of Pantelleria" being one of them. I have recently created a redirect to this article with that name. Thus, it's perfectly suitable to the infobox parameter to have two entries in the same parameter, one for the overall convoy and another for the naval battle. Several articles (even featured ones) shown double entries (see here and here). The complexity of some articles' subjects makes the "standard" terminology for infoboxes inadequate.
 * Yes it does and Italian naval victory is an Axis victory anyway.Keith-264 (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the priority is what reliable sources say, no the "several standard terms" vaguely stressed in the template's guidelines. For example, the template page shows an infobox whose result parameter reads "Swedish phyrric victory", a common feature for battle/war infoboxes in WP but not mentioned as a "standard term" in the narrative. A salomonic way out could be a "See aftermath section" link, but the assessment of the battle "Axis victory" (overall) and "italian naval victory" (Pantelleria) implies no contradiction, not in depth analysis to justify such move. Another solution could be a separated article on "Battle of Pentelleria", but this would breach WP:CFORK, I guess.--Darius (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No again, calling the criterion vague is WP:OR (if it is a criterion, it can't be vague by definition). The point of the infobox is brevity, hence the limit to three terms or a direction to the Aftermath section, where you can discuss it to your heart's content. Keith-264 (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, WP:OR only applies to articles' content, not to opinion on talk pages. What about the examples I provided?. There are problems with brevity here, and not on those pages?--Darius (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your examples are of failure to follow the criterion, this doesn't justify us doing the same. It was an Axis victory because Italy was an Axis country and other Axis forces were involved. If you want to embroider that, there's plenty of room in the Aftermath section, it's what it's for.Keith-264 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should simply state "Axis Victory". If someone wants to begin a separate article about the Battle of Pantalleria, I'd be happy to assist, but even there, the Luftwaffe played a large role in crippling merchant ships which then had to be scuttled due to the Italian naval forces. In any event there was too large an involvement by the Luftwaffe for HARPOON to be considered an Italian Naval victory.Damwiki1 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The involvement of the Italian fleet was decisive to the outcome, this recognized by the British official report. No German naval assets played any role in Harpoon (unlike Vigorous), and no plane (besides the flying boats, perhaps) can taxi over the water to intercept a convoy. Even the majority of "stukas" that dive-bombed the convoy during the naval battle were Italian Air Force aircraft from Sicily's airstrips. More important, (I insist on this) reliable, published sources say Pantelleria was an "Italian naval victory". However, I prefer "Axis Victory" in the infobox of this article that a "See aftermath.." link or a future edit war in another article.. Period.--Darius (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Italian Airforce involvement also has to be recognized and that could potentially change the outcome to "Italian Victory" if there was no Luftwaffe involvement, which was not the case for HARPOON in it's entirety.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to drop in here and add that those two articles you mentioned Keith, with the expanded battle results, only did so because it was necessary to communicate things that wouldn't have been concluded from a simple "X victory." "Axis victory" implies that the Italian naval operation was a success, because it's an encompassing phrase. If the overall operation were an Axis success but a Regia Marina failure then we would need to add the phrase "Italian naval failure" because that wouldn't have been implied by the phrase "Axis victory." Just saying, were have no need to put more than needs to be said. The fine details can go in the aftermath section. Indy beetle (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

'result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.'

How can this be misinterpreted? No hair-splitting in the infobox, See Aftermath section is the thing to put in it given your comments.Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions
Realised that as I added material to Vigorous, it was identical to that for Harpoon since they were part of Julius so have dropped the Background section in. NB it's in sfns, does anyone mind if I change the others from <> references? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ and changed to isbn 13s.Keith-264 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Put out fewer flags
No point in duplicating flags in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
@Graeme, I haven't seen quotes without a space between the text and the quote before, have I missed something? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits II
Found some citations, ce the oob added a bit of text and created a casualties section, leaving a citation needed tag for the Italian losses. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)