Discusión:Ataque al HMS Invincible

No neutralidad (10 de julio de 2020)

Existen gran controversia sobre este tema. Versiones, mayormente argentinas, que afirman que el HMS Invincible (R05) fue dañado gravemente por el misil Exocet y el bombardeo de los A-4, pero también existe la versión británica, que afirma que el misil cayó al mar obnubilado por las contramedidas electrónicas de las escoltas del Invincible; y que los A-4 en realidad atacaron a la fragata HMS Avenger (F185) y que los pilotos argentinos confundieron el humo del chaff con humo de averías. Todo eso hay que explicarlo bien en este artículo, para cumplir la política de neutralidad.--Malvinero1 (discusión) 01:16 11 jun 2020 (UTC)

There is no British version and Argentine version. In Argentina, some people still want to believe the wartime propaganda and have clung to the misguided belief that HMS Invincible was damaged. The rest of the literature records this as a gallant but failed attempt. The truth is the Argentine intelligence was fatally flawed and the attack had no hope of success. Argentine intelligence had sought to determine the position of the carriers from analysis of aircraft flight routes from the task force to the islands. However, the British had a standing order that all aircraft conduct a low level transit when leaving or returning to the carriers to disguise their position. This tactic compromised the Argentine attack, which focused on a group of escorts 40 miles south of the main body of ships. Two of the attacking Skyhawks were shot down by Sea Darts fired by HMS Exeter, with HMS Avenger claiming to have shot down the missile with her 4.5" gun (although this claim is disputed); HMS Exeter maintains it splashed harmlessly into the sea. The surviving Skyhawks attacked HMS Avenger but missed. The smoke seen was from HMS Avenger's smoke stack and was normal for the vessel when spooling up to maximum speed. No damage was caused to any British vessels. That is the truth of it and the elaborate conspiracy theories now espoused in Argentina have no place in wikipedia. Not that I expect you to listen for one second, none of the people involved in writing this had any interest in the truth. 10/10 for effort, 0/10 for compliance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Hasta la vista, baby. Wee Curry Monster (discusión) 15:05 17 ago 2020 (UTC)

Not that I expect you to listen for one second, none of the people involved in writing this had any interest in the truth.  No. You are breaking the WP:PBF (assume good faith) politic.--Mlv10 21:06 17 ago 2020 (UTC)

Prove me wrong then, rewrite this from a neutral perspective highlighting what is the predominant view in the literature and how the "Argentine" view is considered by the rest of the world. I'm willing to bet you won't. Wee Curry Monster (discusión) 22:34 17 ago 2020 (UTC)

Not all the current content is mine. I left the article in 125511025. Obviously, it lacked content, but, then other users edited and since then definitely not neutral.

In fact, I put the POV template on 11 June 2020 (diff).

 Don't: I'm willing to bet you won't. That violates assume good faith policy. Last warning.--Mlv10 22:59 17 ago 2020 (UTC)

And I am not saying tacitly that you are right about the "there is not Argentine and British version".--Mlv10 23:11 17 ago 2020 (UTC)

Really you are not writing from a neutral perspective, you fail to do so because of Falso equilibrio. There is no evidence to support what you call the "Argentine version", yes there was an attack, yes it was a brave effort but it failed because the intelligence was faulty. Hence to claim it must be included to present a NPOV is a Falso equilibrio. There is no British version, facts have no nationality. Wee Curry Monster (discusión) 11:25 18 ago 2020 (UTC)

I am fixing it.--Mlv10 15:52 18 ago 2020 (UTC)

Esta es la Wikipedia en español, incluidas las páginas de discusión. Por favor no escriban comentarios en otros idiomas. Germanramos2 (discusión) 03:28 5 dic 2021 (UTC)

Clarificar sección "desarrollo"

Esta frase en la sección "desarrollo" necesitaría un repaso: "Sin embargo, los británicos tenían una orden estricta de que todo avión volará a baja altura cuando partían y regalaban en los portaviones para ocultar sus posiciones"; al no tener la referencia a mano no puedo comprobarlo pero asumo que es una mala traducción de un comentario anterior en esta discusión: "However, the British had a standing order that all aircraft conduct a low level transit when leaving or returning to the carriers to disguise their position." Dubstar (discusión) 03:06 24 sep 2022 (UTC)