Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 2 January 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ARA General Belgrano article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Shipwrecks Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: edit history watch purge To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None Military history: Maritime / South America This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force South American military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South America: Falklands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Argentina Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Science and technology in Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve ARA General Belgrano, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2004, May 2, 2005, May 2, 2006, May 2, 2007, May 2, 2008, May 2, 2009, May 2, 2010, and May 2, 2012.

New book shows the ship was steaming towards the Falklands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orders are repeated on a cycle, yes I can provide a cite if necessary. Further you are concluding on the basis of certain facts that the orders were several days old and you don't have a source to say that. It is WP:OR, your WP:OR.

Your second point is fallacious reasoning, it is a relevant opinion, attributed to the originator, so no you don't throw out the sentence. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• To further add to Curry's point, Misplaced Pages does not accept any guess work (even if it is an educated assumption) unless there are properly researched and/or sourced documents/journals to back up any controversial views. Hence, Fringe theorist are strongly discouraged to push their agenda per WP:Fringe theories. --Dave 08:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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 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, Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages). 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 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)

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)

1. Harding, Thomas (26 December 2011). "Belgrano was heading to the Falklands, secret papers reveal". The Daily Telegraph. London.

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Shipwreck articles
• Low-importance Shipwreck articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• B-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Ships articles
• All WikiProject Ships pages
• B-Class South America articles
• Low-importance South America articles
• B-Class Falkland Islands articles
• Low-importance Falkland Islands articles
• Falkland Islands articles
• WikiProject South America articles
• B-Class Argentine articles
• Mid-importance Argentine articles
• WikiProject Argentina articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2012)