Talk:HMS Invincible (R05)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about HMS Invincible (R05). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources in spanish

According to WP:V "sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available". If you think wikipedia official policy is wrong, please discuss it in the appropiate talk page. If no satisfactory reply is written before tonight im going to re-revert. Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with policy. The issue is that, allegedly (I don't know for sure as I don't speak Spanish), the Spanish language reference made a claim about there being four different official British versions of what happened to Invincible after the Falklands war. If this really is so, then there should be plenty of English language references - Hansard, news reports, book references etc that can be used to demonstrate this. Official statements of the British government do not dissapear into thin air. If the only reference available is in Spanish, then I cannot accept that the claims are for actual "official" versions of anything, hence the reference is inherently unreliable. This is especially the case given the laugable claims that the ship was either sunk - then magically rebuilt in a very short time, or was severely damaged and repaired and then the whole thing covered up - which appears to be a claim made only in Spanish language (primarily Argentinian) sources. Remember none of the 1000 or so people on board her (including members of the Press) have ever in the following 25 years or so "revealed" the secret. This is because it never happened. Get over it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Argentino, show us these "four different official British versions". Ryan4314 (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one claiming there are four different British official versions of events. Ask that of those who want to use the Spanish language "reference" which apparently claims that. As I said, I can't speak (or read) Spanish so I can't check the alleged reference, which is why I fact tagged the statement. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if the thing was in English it doesnt look to be a reliable source. Totally agree, unless further reliable sources are provided in English it should certainly not be put into the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Im joining this thread per Bill request. Im argentine (obviuosly) but I must admit that after 25 years is highly rare that of the 1000 men onboard (plus the escorts) no one has yet confessed about the explosions and I surely believe this is not the place to go in detail about what might have happened. But yet, like us or not, both officials views (claim and the negation) have been around all this time and therefore are notable enough. So my proposal to settle this would be:

Although Argentina claims to have damaged this ship during the Falklands War,[13] this is officially denied by the British Government[14][15]. The decision made by the UK government to classified unknown topics until 2082 made possible the creation of urban legends about the attack.

hope that helps. --Jor70 (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The information is out of date, in 2000 the current Labour Government passed the Freedom of Information Act. This means the Falklands files are now publicly available. The 2082 quote has not been relevant for nearly 9 years.

Furthermore on the IWM website, there are plenty of images of HMS Invincible after the May 30 attack. Navy News for September 1982 published pictures of the meeting of HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious on August 27. Not to mention on June 1, the Invincible air group was active, Sharkey Ward shooting down a C-130. In none of these images is there any sign of damage. Furthermore the British Government has admitted to all of the damage its warships sustained.

Further per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE we represent views as to their relevance and representation in the mainstream, we do not have to give credence to claims that are patently absurd, especially when the overwhelming weight of evidence shows them to be utter bollocks. Argentina claimed to have sunk HMS Invincible no less than 6 times, perhaps they should have shipped a few conscripts home in her, then these ludicrous claims would have been debunked just like the Canberra, which also they claimed to have sunk.

I really don't understand why some persist in this, the bravery of the Argentine Air Forces has been acknowledged. Persisting in these claims merely devalues their memory. Justin talk 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: The alleged source is the website of one El Malvinense, serial nutter who claims Argentina shot down over 60 Sea Harriers; some 40 more than actually existed at the time. This is not a reliable source for the claims, in fact its laughable that anyone would give that site the slightest bit of credence whatsoever. Justin talk 20:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not supporting the succesful of the attack, I was trying to limit the discussion. As of the 2000 act If I m not wrong I read this year about issues still withheld --Jor70 (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, infomation can only be with held in specific categories and covering up "battle damage" or embarassment isn't one of them. There is also a Freedom of Information commissioner who can mandate the release of information if disclosure is warranted. Justin talk 22:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had some experience with the FOI act, due to my new article [1], I can confirm that it has obsoleted the 100 years rule and the more infamous Thirty year rule. [2] Ryan4314 (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Colture section?

Maybe we should add a small in Pop. Cult. section, as this is the ship that Top Gear used to kill off the Black Stig. It's a interesting part of the ships service, I think. What do people think?--76.95.102.167 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

NO, read WP:MILPOP -MBK₀₀₄ 02:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy about damaging or sinking of Invincible

There are many signs that give certainty that the attack was to the Invincible, and that it was seriously damaged or even sunk, that day May 30, 1982: After the attack, the Argentine radar located in the Falklands, detects a intense British helicopters activity, which was heading east on the island Soledad. While, Aircrafts that were at Invincible, rise to 12,000 meters (maneuver in order to save fuel). Later, planes land at San Carlos, where British troops were established on 21 May. That same day (05/30/82) General J. Moore decided to move from the Invincible (Where he directed all operations so far) to San Carlos, to continue commanding the troops from there. The British air activity in early June was the lowest in the entire campaign. It is simply not possible for the Avenger shot down an Exocet with his gun. The HMS Invincible took 4 months to enter to port after the conflict, more than any other ship of the fleet, and that is the longest time than an aircraft carrier has remained out of any port. The testimony of Bryan Wolling, navy nurse of HMS Invincible, recipient of a medal for his outstanding performance in the war, claims to have had serious problems for the care of injured and burned in the carriers. Wolling was dishonorably discharged from the Royal Navy. In 1999, he won a lawsuit against the Royal Navy, stating in the stand the details of the care of seriously wounded by the attack Argentine to the Invincible. The crew list of the aircraft carrier was never revealed, it seem to be like a ship ghost unmanned and lost for 4 months. The Invincible was the ONLY ship of the fleet in which the media were not allowed to access after the war. The aircraft carrier that enters to an english port 4 months after the end of war under the name of HMS Invincible, was very different from that one sent to war. This can be verified in the photos. Some say Invincible was the same, after months of repairments at unknown location (which may be Ascension Island, South Georgia or including Gibraltar) others believe it was actually the HMS Illustrious (they were twins, but they had some differences that can be recognized in the images available). Before the war the sale of Invincible was agreed to the army of India, but for unknown reasons the sale was postponed (could be that nobody wants to buy an aircraft carrier sunk or touched). How came that a new carrier like the invincible was not sold to another country, like happens with all the ships, and it is sold as waste? In that time, during the Cold War, there were a lot of reasons for England to hide the weakness of its new aircraft carrier. Why keep a secret for 99 years if nothing bad happened? Argentina did not have satellite imagery and intelligence network to confirm the effects of the attack, to deny it was the smartest thing that could do England, and that is what they did. This is not the first time that England hide the sinking of a carrier. The sinking of HMS Dasher, which took place in 1943 during the Second World War, remained hidden for 50 years. In fact it was released in the nineties, after the Falklands. In that opportunity, 358 crewmembers died. (Fredfed (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC))

Crazy! It took so long to return to Britain because it was stationed off the Falklands after the war to provide air defence. She only left to head home when she was relieved by Illustrious. And it was Australia who was due to buy the ship. That you get these two basic facts wrong shows you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Also three carriers were built, going by your theory a total of four were built and one sunk - I don't think VSEL or Swan Hunter could hide the building of an aircraft carrier! Crazy!! Mark83 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark, first of all, I would like to remember to you Wikipedia rules about Civility. I think your message is aggressive and contains adjectives that break the rules. I hope you can understand it. Second, regarding the stay in the Falklands, according to official British history, on September 17, 1982, the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible returns to Portsmouth Harbour, after serving a record 166 days sailing the high seas. There is much literature on what I write, mostly in spanish.(Fredfed (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC))

I apologise that you felt what I wrote was aggressive. I did go too far, so again apologies. However I repeat that the long stay was due to the need to provide air defence for the islands pending relief by Illustrious. Secondly please remember what talk pages are for - discussing changes to the article. Please state what changes you propose with appropriate citations. This is not the place for putting forth theories. Mark83 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll be direct, this story is complete and utter nonsense. It has no place in Wikipedia, the same as the Nazi moonbase, the moon landing hoax conspiracy or any other piece of nonsense on the Internet. There is no reliable source that would give credence to this nonsense. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

On this point Curry Monster I agree. The five air launched Exocets Argentina has are well acoounted for

(1) Incinerated HMS Sheffields operation room

(2) Decoyed by HMS Yarmouth

(3) Hit Atlantic Conveyor before it offloaded in heavy helicopters

(4) Taken by HMS Exeter sea dart at first thought to be 4.5 from T21

(5) Hit Atlantic Conveyor used as a block ship to guard carriers

There was no way of converting destroyer mounted Exocets to air launched ones. User:202.37.64.48 talk 00:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)‎

Reformatted above malformed comment made earlier today by 262.37.64.48 talk, change only to remove box around text, fix indentation and sign the post. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok Mark. I agree and appreciate your comment. Regarding the proposal, my point is that this is a significant event that deserves a separate paragraph in the note. Even if you believe this is a crazy version. It is obvious that the current version of the article is hiding this. If it is hided, you are not having a neutral point of view, and that contradicts the rules of Wikipedia. It would be appropriate, in pursuit of neutrality, to develop briefly the different versions. There are books written by specialized journalists and Argentine pilots giving specific details about the operation, and the consequences of the operation (which is not recognized by UK, whose explanation has many weaknesses): Emilio Villarino, "Exocet", September 1986 Editorial April, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Brigadier Benigno H. Andrada, "Air War in the Falklands" Emecé Publishers SA, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, Rodney A. Burden, Michael I Draper, Douglas A. Rough, Colin R. David A. Smith & Wilton, "Falklands, the Air War," Arms and Armour Press, 1987, Paul Eddy, Magnus Linklater, Peter Gillman & Insight Team of The Sunday Times, "The Falklands War", 1982. And there are a lot more. There are also websites. You have the official version of the Fuerza Aérea Argentina with precised details of the operation: http://www.faa.mil.ar/conflicto/dias/may30.html. And the issue is widely debated in many military forums, specialized or not: http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html; http://www.russiadefence.net/t958p30-hms-invincible-and -the-falkland-war-in-1982; http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1280; and much more.I repeat, it is a relevant point in the story in question, and I think it deserves a separate paragraph in the article.(Fredfed (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC))

Concur with the other users, this is a fringe theory to put it very politely and per WP:FRINGE has no place in this article. We don't need to give further credence to these ideas. As has been stated there are obvious and important objections to the theory. And no, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, we do not need to include it to avoid being non-neutral or contradicting the rules of Wikipedia. This is an all too common misconception. Benea (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Its hiding nothing and as noted above we do not have to give credence to this whatsoever. Zero relevance, deserving of nothing. To quote a mate of mine that served on Vinny in the war, he didn't swim home in '82. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This conspiracy myth has absolutely no place in wiki. If you want the evidence of the doctored photos in the Argentinian press, about how the pilots were more or less forced to lie, about who is keeping this myth going so he makes money out of it, about the impossibility of repairing a carrier at sea, or of having built a replacement carrier in 6 weeks, or of having secretly built a 4th carrier without anyone knowing, or about the fact that she was left there to provide air defence until relieved by Illustrious and how during this time all the crew were ordered by the captain to chip and paint the ship clean to give the sailors something to do as a way of dealing with the lack of action, or about the Argentinians having already twice claimed to having sunk the Invincible before, and the Canberra, or if you want to read about the UK press who were on the ship {and here for the fact that they were constantly trying to support the public's right to know during the campaign, pp.76-8^[1]}, or about the 1,100 crew aboard who all say the same, about the unbelievable costs any of this would involve when the UK was skint after the Thatcher recession, and about the fact that this would have required tens of thousands of people to be in on the lie and the fact that this would be completely impossible in a free and open democracy etc etc etc then look in the link below or click here.^[2]

I'll add that there's no dry dock in St Helena, that's why the RMS St Helena is at a dry dock in South Africa ^[3] and that there is no way that the UK could get an aircraft carrier into Gibraltar without the Spanish and every sailor through the Straits knowing about it. The Australian PM was happy to cancel the purchase in 1983 as the MoD had decided the Falklands made clear that the UK needed to keep a fleet of 3 carriers. And why would the UK, who had admitted every single lost ship and aircraft, have decided to deny the sinking of Invincible and choose to instigate a massive conspiracy? What possible reason can there be for that? Given the pride the UK takes in its armed forces, on the importance of war graves, and the fact that sunk RN ships are designated as war graves which must be respected^[4] why do you think that the UK would leave 800 bodies at the bottom of the South Atlantic with no commemoration? This is a ridiculous theory. Read the link below and answer the questions about the doctored photos and the other points raised.

And may I add that citing forums where people are spouting the same ideas - all of which are successfully rebuffed by others on the forum - without supporting evidence doesn't count as proof. If someone says, without any evidence, that Mossad was behind 9/11 on a conspiracy site, that doesn't count as evidence that Mossad did 9/11.

Though you mix these forums up with Argentinian sources but then claim the Sunday Times Insght Team's 1982 book also makes these claims. On what page? Because I can find nothing to suggest that's true. Look here.^[5] This article quotes the STIT book extensively. On p.35, they say "Overall, works published by journalists, including those of Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins and The Sunday Times Insight Team, are extremely insightful." Yet on pp.81-2, when they talk about the Invincible theory, they don't say anything about the STIT supporting it. Instead, they say: "Since the Argentines were notorious for reporting multiple “sinkings” of ships, (and these ships were never actually sunk, nor properly attacked), the British counters to “wild boasts” from Argentina were believable. For example, on 30 May, the Argentinians reported they had attacked and sunk the HMS Invincible with an Exocet missile. The Argentine pilots claimed to have seen the ship hit as smoke was billowing from below. Argentine newspapers even published photos of the Invincible burning. In reality, the Exocet missile missed two frigates, the HMS Exter and Avenger. The smoke the pilots reported was actually from the Avenger’s 4.5 inch anti-aircraft gun while the Invincible was twenty miles away. Admiral Woodward called this Argentine report “the least accurate story of the whole war.”

Therefore, to suggest the STIT book backs up the theory is an outright lie. So you don't have any reputable journalists agreeing with this as you claim. All you have are the works of the Argentinian pilots {which the article below explains how and why they were made to lie} and the same, unsubstantiated theories posted by pro-Argentinian and anti-Western posters on a selection of forums. These people do not count as reputable journalists and historians. See the Mossad 9/11 analogy above. You should not claim that reputable journalists are saying the same thing in a book when they are not. So you either actually believe this but haven't checked yourself (in which case please cite your source} or you have read the book and know it to be untrue but still decide to post it. Neither should be acceptable on wiki. Now please read the article below.

https://rickydphillipsauthor.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/was-hms-invincible-ro5-sunk-in-the-falklands-war-heres-the-truth/ Ganpati23 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

References

^ https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2922&context=all_theses
^ "Was HMS Invincible (RO5) sunk in the Falklands War? – Here's the truth…". 2016-10-04.
^ "RMS VOYAGE 255 CANCELLED « St Helena".
^ Ryall, Julian (2018-02-28). "'The ships are war graves': Relatives hit out at metal merchants who 'dumped sailors remains' in Indonesia". The Telegraph.
^ https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2922&context=all_theses

Alturnative homecoming pic

I feel that this pic better shows the flotia around it as it arrived back in portsmouth. Anyone else have an opinion?Geni (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's better. I say change it. Ganpati23 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot note April 2014

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/invincible/index.html
Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we say more about the last refit and why it was decommissioned so soon after

Article just says "She was decommissioned on 3 August 2005, twenty months after an extensive refit that had been intended to give her ten more years of service.[17]" - Would be nice to know what the extensive refit was, what it was intended for, and why the decision to decommission eight years early. - Rod57 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert but from memory the MoD decided to decommission the carriers to save money while the expensive, new shiny ones were built. The Harriers were sold to the USMC for spares. Ganpati23 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on HMS Invincible (R05). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

[1] ttps://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2922&context=all_theses

[2] "Was HMS Invincible (RO5) sunk in the Falklands War? – Here's the truth…". 2016-10-04.

[3] "RMS VOYAGE 255 CANCELLED « St Helena".

[4] Ryall, Julian (2018-02-28). "'The ships are war graves': Relatives hit out at metal merchants who 'dumped sailors remains' in Indonesia". The Telegraph.

[5] ttps://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2922&context=all_theses

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]