text:
J. Frank Dobie

James Frank Dobie (September 26, 1888 – September 18, 1964) was an American folklorist, writer, and newspaper columnist best known for his many books depicting the richness and traditions of life in rural Texas during the days of the open range. He was known in his lifetime for his outspoken liberal views against Texas state politics, and he carried out a long, personal war against what he saw as braggart Texans, religious prejudice, restraints on individual liberty, and the mechanized world's assault on the human spirit. He was instrumental in saving the Texas Longhorn breed of cattle from extinction.

Early years
James Frank Dobie was born on a ranch in Live Oak County, Texas, and was the eldest of six children. When he was young, his father Richard read to him from the Bible and his mother Ella read to him from books such as Ivanhoe and Pilgrim's Progress. At 16, Dobie moved to Alice, the seat of Jim Wells County, Texas, where he lived with his grandparents and finished high school at William Adams High School.

In 1906, Dobie enrolled in Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas, where he was introduced to English poetry by a professor who urged him to become a writer. While in college he also met Bertha McKee (1890–1974), whom he married in 1916.

After graduating in 1910, Dobie worked briefly for newspapers in San Antonio and Galveston before gaining his first teaching job at a high school in Alpine in southwestern Texas. In 1911, he returned to Georgetown to teach at Southwestern Preparatory School.

In 1913, Dobie went to Columbia University to work on a master's degree, and the next year, returned to Texas to join the faculty of the University of Texas at Austin. He also became affiliated with the Texas Folklore Society. In 1917, he left the university to serve in the field artillery in World War I. He was briefly sent overseas at the end of the war and was discharged in 1919.

Early writing career
Dobie began to publish his first articles in 1919; by 1920 he was writing articles mostly about Longhorn cattle and life in the southwest. That year, he left the University of Texas faculty to work on his uncle's ranch in La Salle County, north of Laredo, where he developed a desire to write about Texas ranch life and southwestern folklore.

After a year on the ranch, Dobie returned to UT and began to use its library and the Texas Folklore Society's resources to write about the vanishing way of life on rural Texas ranches. In 1922, he became the Texas Folklore Society's secretary and began a program for publication, holding the post of secretary-editor for 21 years. In 1923, unable to get a promotion without a PhD, Dobie accepted a job at Oklahoma A&M College as chair of its English department. While in Oklahoma, he wrote for the Country Gentleman. He returned to Austin in 1925 after receiving a token promotion with help from friends.

In 1929, Dobie published his first book, A Vaquero of the Brush Country, which helped establish him as an authentic voice of Texas and southwestern culture. While the title page said the book was "Partly from the Reminiscences of John Young", the author was given as J. Frank Dobie. The book was the result of a collaboration between Dobie and Young, a former open-range vaquero who had fought against the encroachment of barbed wire on southwest Texas's rangelands. Young had written Dobie for help in writing his autobiography, saying that he intended to use the profits from the book to build a hotel for cattlemen in San Antonio. Dobie agreed to help Young; he rearranged the raw material of Young's reminiscences and rewrote it in the prose of historical writing.

Although Lawrence Clark Powell, an authority on western writing at the University of California, wrote in the preface to the 1957 edition, "it was unmistakably Dobie on every page, in every paragraph, sentence, and word", in 1994 Young's heirs filed a petition with the U.S. District Court For the Western District Of Texas asserting that Young and Dobie coauthored the book. The matter of A Vaquero of the Brush Country 's authorship was ultimately resolved in this litigation between Young's descendants, Dobie's estate, and the University of Texas, holders of interests in the copyright. The court ruled that Young and Dobie are the joint authors of A Vaquero of the Brush Country.

In 1931, Dobie published Coronado's Children, a collection of folklore about lost mines and lost treasures. This was followed by a series of books in the 1930s. In 1941 he published The Longhorns, a commercial and critical success that got a full-page review in The New York Times. It is considered one of the best descriptions of the traditions of the Texas Longhorn cattle breed during the 19th century. In 1932, UT named Dobie the first full professor not to possess a PhD

In 1937, Dobie was visiting Thomas Calloway Lea, Jr., a friend and prominent attorney in El Paso. After seeing Lea's son Tom Lea's artwork, Dobie asked the younger man to illustrate the book he was working on, Apache Gold and Yaqui Silver. Tom Lea also illustrated The Longhorns, as well as a biography of Texas pioneer John C. Duval. Dobie and Lea remained good friends for the rest of Dobie's life.

In 1939, Dobie began publishing a Sunday newspaper column in which he routinely poked fun at Texas politics. A liberal Democrat, he often found an easy target for his words in the antics of the state's politicians. Of state politics, he once wrote, "When I get ready to explain homemade fascism in America, I can take my example from the state capitol of Texas."

Later writing career
During World War II, Dobie taught American history at Cambridge University, and he took a leave of absence from the University of Texas to return to Europe after the war to teach in England, Germany, and Austria, later writing of his experiences at Cambridge in A Texan in England. When the UT Board of Regents fired President Homer Rainey for his liberal views, Dobie was outraged and made his views known publicly, causing Texas Governor Coke Stevenson to say that Dobie too should be dismissed. Dobie's subsequent request for an extension of his leave of absence was rejected, and he was dismissed from UT in 1947. After his dismissal, Dobie published another series of books and anthologies of stories about the open range.

Death and legacy
On September 14, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson, a longtime political rival of Stevenson, awarded Dobie the Medal of Freedom. Dobie died four days later. His funeral was held in Hogg Auditorium at the University of Texas; he is interred at the Texas State Cemetery.

In 1965, Dobie was inducted into the Hall of Great Westerners of the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum.

Dobie Paisano Fellowship
In 1959, after a severe illness, Dobie sold his ranch in Marble Falls and bought a ranch 14 miles southwest of Austin, which he named "Paisano". He used the ranch as a writer's retreat until his death in 1964. A movement to preserve the ranch promptly started, and longtime friend Ralph A. Johnston purchased the Paisano Ranch to take it off the market. By 1966, he had transferred the deed to the University of Texas. The university has said:

"Paisano will be operated by the University as a permanent memorial to J. Frank Dobie, and the primary use will be to encourage creative artistic effort in all fields, particularly in writing. It will be kept in its present more or less natural state and the ranch house will be kept in simple style, very much as it was when Frank Dobie occupied it."

Two fellowships of six months each are awarded by a committee chosen by the presidents of UT-Austin and the Texas Institute of Letters. The applicants must be native Texans, or Texas residents for at least two years, or persons whose writing is substantially identified with the state.

Buildings and ponds named in his honor

 * J. Frank Dobie Station, San Antonio, Texas 78219, (United States Postal Service)
 * J. Frank Dobie High School in Houston,Tx
 * J. Frank Dobie Junior High School in Cibolo
 * J. Frank Dobie Middle School in Austin
 * J. Frank Dobie Elementary School in Dallas
 * Dobie Center in Austin
 * J. Frank Dobie Museum in George West in Live Oak County
 * J. Frank Dobie Fishing Pond in Nepean, Ontario

List of works

 * Weather Wisdom of the Texas-Mexican Border. 1923 Ebook
 * A Vaquero of the Brush Country. Dallas: by John Young and J. Frank Dobie, The Southwest Press. 1929.
 * Coronado's Children. Dallas: The Southwest Press. 1930.
 * On the Open Range. Dallas: The Southwest Press. 1931.
 * Tongues of the Monte. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. 1935.
 * The Flavor of Texas. Dallas: Dealey and Lowe. 1936.
 * Tales of the Mustang. Dallas: Rein Co. for The Book Club of Texas. 1936.
 * Apache Gold & Yaqui Silver. Boston: Little, Brown. 1939.
 * John C. Duval. First Texas Man of Letters. Dallas: Southwest Review. 1939.
 * The Roadrunner in Fact and Folk-lore. 1939
 * The Longhorns. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. 1941.
 * Guide to Life and Literature of the Southwest. Austin: U.T. Press. 1943.
 * A Texan in England. Boston: Little, Brown. 1945.
 * The Seven Mustangs. Address delivered at the unveiling of the monument, May 31, 1948, University of Texas, Austin. The Adams Publications, Austin, Texas,1948.
 * The Voice of the Coyote. Boston: Little, Brown. 1949. Paperback edition, University of Nebraska Press, 1961.
 * The Ben Lilly Legend. Boston: Little, Brown. 1950.
 * The Mustangs. Boston: Little, Brown. 1952.
 * Tales of Old Time Texas. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1955.
 * Up the Trail From Texas. N.Y.: Random House. 1955.
 * I'll Tell You a Tale. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1960.
 * Cow People. Boston: Little, Brown. 1964.
 * Some Part of Myself. Boston: Little, Brown. 1967.
 * Rattlesnakes. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1965.
 * Out of the Old Rock. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1972.
 * Prefaces. Boston: Little, Brown. 1975.
 * Wild and Wily Range Animals. Flagstaff: Northland Press. 1980.

Many of Dobie's works are featured in Ramon Adams's Six-Guns and Saddle Leather and The Rampaging Herd, two bibliographic works on the history of the American West and the cattle industry.

Media

 * A one-act play by Steve Moore, Nightswim, about Dobie, Roy Bedichek, and Walter Prescott Webb was first produced in Austin in 2004. Their friendship is narrated in William A. Owens's 1969 book Three Friends: Roy Bedichek, J. Frank Dobie, Walter Prescott Webb.

title: J. Frank Dobie


text:
Talk:Equisetum

Untitled
..."the only genus in the family Equisetaceae, in the order Equisetales, in the class Equisetopsida, sometimes placed in its own division, Equisetophyta, or in the division Tracheophyta or Archeophyta."

Have I understood this right? Is this the only genus in the order, class and (possibly) division? If so, all 3 of those levels should be bolded in the taxobox and the opening para, and we should have redirects from all 3 of them, because this is the defining page for them all. But although I have contributed to this page, I don't know enough about this plant to risk doing that - I only got involved with the page because I was doing one about Hippuris and ran into the ambiguity. Could someone who knows more about it make these changes if appropriate? thanks. seglea 05:31, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely correct in terms of living plants. There are other classes and orders, but they're only fossils. jaknouse 16:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've now adjusted to treat this page as defining for the family and order, but left open the class and division, since we might some time acquire pages on fossil members.  seglea 16:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Tracheophyta--this is a group that's a bit ambiguous with regards to whether you want to call it a division or whatnot. Basically, it's somewhere between division and kingdom and includes all vascular plants. Equisetopsida has always been a tracheophyte, but different people vary in whether they give Equisetopsida its own division, lump it into Pteridophyta, etc., and in what hierarchical level they want to call the tracheophytes. I've changed things slightly to reflect this. Paalexan 22:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Equisetum japonicum
I'v got Equisetum japonicum in my pond, but it isn't mentioned here as a species. Is this really an existing species or not? Tbc2 19:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Checked up - it is usually treated as a synonym of Equisetum hyemale - MPF 10:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Equiseta
Flora de Chile considers E.giganteum and E xylochateum the same taxon. --Penarc 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)--Penarc 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies
Between the Equisetum page and the Vascular Plant page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular_plant ), Equisetum is listed under Pteridophyta and Equisetophyta respectively. As I am a new member (for I only registered to query this) I am unsure how to change this. If anyone has the research to back up one or the other division, could he or she edit the discrepancy? Thanks. Antsponge 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is recent speculation that Equisetum actually belongs in the Pteridophyta division. I am unsure how do deal with this situation as well. Snafflekid 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Digging around, as of 2006 there is a proposal for new classification of ferns, which is keeping the placement in flux. Snafflekid 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Puzzlegrass synonym?
When I was growing up in Iowa there was a plant that looked like this called puzzlegrass since you can take apart the sections and put them back together. Does anyone know if horsetail and puzzlegrass Are synonyms? If they are shouldn't there be a mention in the etymology section. 96.240.142.146 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Shavegrass?
I found this page after trying to locate "shave grass" or "shavegrass." Apparently this is a name used for this plant, particularly when used medicinally. Perhaps a redirect is in order? 174.109.182.97 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

John Napier and horsetails?
"It has been suggested that the pattern of spacing of nodes in horsetails, wherein those toward the apex of the shoot are increasingly close together, inspired John Napier to discover logarithms.[4]"

I was unable to view the source without a subscription, but I don't believe this claim belongs in this article. It is only a suggestion - a musing - and one that can't possibly be substantiated without reference to documents from Napier's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.157.70 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Source Combination Confusion
Under the Medicinal Uses division, "The European Food Safety Authority issued a report assessing its medicinal uses in 2009.[25] Equisetum telmateia may be a useful source of antioxidants.[26]" The sources of these two statements contradict their usage here.

The report in source [25] does not state that antioxidant ability was confirmed or even investigated. The only reference to the word "antioxidant" in that report was an example of how it can be used in an ambiguous way. The study referenced in that report, indicating rat brain cell cultures in a petri dish produced compounds (that I'm assuming are the foundation of the antioxidant claim), only did so when purified extract was dripped directly on the braincell culture and then incubated in said petri dish. This is hardly the kind of evidence of antioxidant activity that a typical human would have value in; it implies the owner of the brain cells will not receive an advantage from the antioxidant effect.

Source [26] is a study that was not related to the EFSA in source [25]. It is also an example of the ambiguous claims the EFSA in source [25] disputes by the way it performs a pH buffer test and makes the ambiguous claims that it "could be" a source of antioxidants. The test, as described, would also claim that Rolaids antacid tablets "could be a useful source of antioxidants with huge scavenging ability".

To summarize my ramble, placing the sourced statement "...may be a useful source of..." right after a sourced statement of "...Authority issued a report assessing it's medical uses...", is exactly what the EFSA says is an invalid health claim. Source 25 says that source 26 is invalid for use as a health benefit claim, but the wording is arranged in this article in a way that creates an illusion that 25 is backing 26's claim.

In source 25 the EFSA "...concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established..." in every claim that they investigated with this plant.

Now, I arrived here after finding this plant in my yard and was hopeful that it would have some kind of use. I have no intention of poo-pooing something I have that I may benefit from. When I checked the sources, however, I found that the one medicinal claim in the article was wrong, sourced, and misleading. I'm not sure how it happened, or how to rewrite it to Wikipedia standards, but I request some attention to the issue since this plant is also historically known as harmful to some people and animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.228.228 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope the most recent edits have addressed your concerns. Novickas (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks irreproachable in its current configuration. Thank you. When following the sources now, it points out a need for research into the plants traditional health uses instead of knocking down contemporary sales pitches. 98.209.228.228 (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

E. debile
What is the position of E. debile ? If you google it, you'll find a lot of entries, mostly from eastern Indian Ocean areas. However, the article doesnt mentioned it. Can any expert here explain ? Thank you. Kembangraps (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's treated as a subspecies of E. ramosissimum, i.e. E. ramosissimum subsp. debile. I've added it as a synonym of E. ramosissium in the list. However, the articles on the species don't match the taxonomy in this genus article, since E. ramosissimum redirects to E. giganteum which this article gives as a separate species, as do recent reliable sources (e.g. this one). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 one external links on Equisetum. 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.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714050011/http://www.fiu.edu/~chusb001/GiantEquisetum/Intro_Equisetum.html to http://www.fiu.edu/~chusb001/GiantEquisetum/Intro_Equisetum.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040404033635/http://www.fiu.edu:80/~chusb001/giant_equisetum.html to http://www.fiu.edu/~chusb001/giant_equisetum.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112023355/http://www.msuextension.org:80/ruralliving/Dream/PDF/Equine_poison.pdf to http://www.msuextension.org/ruralliving/Dream/PDF/Equine_poison.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Horsetails and hadrosaurs
I've removed (for now) the comment that silicates in hadrosaur teeth suggest they ate horsetails, because while the idea is really fascinating, the source provided doesn't actually say anything about that. There is an article at that shows that this is a genuine claim, and probably has an even better scientific source out there for referencing, but my attempts to add a new reference to the article did not work properly and I don't want to mess up the existing formatting. 2600:1006:A105:43B9:25B9:7A49:9CDD:E3A2 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added back a more qualified note with the reference. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Equisetum


text:
Digital image

A digital image is an image composed of picture elements, also known as pixels, each with finite, discrete quantities of numeric representation for its intensity or gray level that is an output from its two-dimensional functions fed as input by its spatial coordinates denoted with x, y on the x-axis and y-axis, respectively. Depending on whether the image resolution is fixed, it may be of vector or raster type.

Raster
Raster images have a finite set of digital values, called picture elements or pixels. The digital image contains a fixed number of rows and columns of pixels. Pixels are the smallest individual element in an image, holding quantized values that represent the brightness of a given color at any specific point.

Typically, the pixels are stored in computer memory as a raster image or raster map, a two-dimensional array of small integers. These values are often transmitted or stored in a compressed form.

Raster images can be created by a variety of input devices and techniques, such as digital cameras, scanners, coordinate-measuring machines, seismographic profiling, airborne radar, and more. They can also be synthesized from arbitrary non-image data, such as mathematical functions or three-dimensional geometric models; the latter being a major sub-area of computer graphics. The field of digital image processing is the study of algorithms for their transformation.

Raster file formats
Most users come into contact with raster images through digital cameras, which use any of several image file formats.

Some digital cameras give access to almost all the data captured by the camera, using a raw image format. The Universal Photographic Imaging Guidelines (UPDIG) suggests these formats be used when possible since raw files produce the best quality images. These file formats allow the photographer and the processing agent the greatest level of control and accuracy for output. Their use is inhibited by the prevalence of proprietary information (trade secrets) for some camera makers, but there have been initiatives such as OpenRAW to influence manufacturers to release these records publicly. An alternative may be Digital Negative (DNG), a proprietary Adobe product described as "the public, archival format for digital camera raw data". Although this format is not yet universally accepted, support for the product is growing, and increasingly professional archivists and conservationists, working for respectable organizations, variously suggest or recommend DNG for archival purposes.

Vector
Vector images resulted from mathematical geometry (vector). In mathematical terms, a vector consists of both a magnitude, or length, and a direction.

Often, both raster and vector elements will be combined in one image; for example, in the case of a billboard with text (vector) and photographs (raster).

Example of vector file types are EPS, PDF, and AI.

Image viewing
Image viewer software displayed on images. Web browsers can display standard internet images formats including JPEG, GIF and PNG. Some can show SVG format which is a standard W3C format. In the past, when the Internet was still slow, it was common to provide "preview" images that would load and appear on the website before being replaced by the main image (to give at preliminary impression). Now Internet is fast enough and this preview image is seldom used.

Some scientific images can be very large (for instance, the 46 gigapixel size image of the Milky Way, about 194 Gb in size). Such images are difficult to download and are usually browsed online through more complex web interfaces.

Some viewers offer a slideshow utility to display a sequence of images.

History

Early digital fax machines such as the Bartlane cable picture transmission system preceded digital cameras and computers by decades. The first picture to be scanned, stored, and recreated in digital pixels was displayed on the Standards Eastern Automatic Computer (SEAC) at NIST. The advancement of digital imagery continued in the early 1960s, alongside development of the space program and in medical research. Projects at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MIT, Bell Labs and the University of Maryland, among others, used digital images to advance satellite imagery, wirephoto standards conversion, medical imaging, videophone technology, character recognition, and photo enhancement.

Rapid advances in digital imaging began with the introduction of MOS integrated circuits in the 1960s and microprocessors in the early 1970s, alongside progress in related computer memory storage, display technologies, and data compression algorithms.

The invention of computerized axial tomography (CAT scanning), using x-rays to produce a digital image of a "slice" through a three-dimensional object, was of great importance to medical diagnostics. As well as origination of digital images, digitization of analog images allowed the enhancement and restoration of archaeological artifacts and began to be used in fields as diverse as nuclear medicine, astronomy, law enforcement, defence and industry.

Advances in microprocessor technology paved the way for the development and marketing of charge-coupled devices (CCDs) for use in a wide range of image capture devices and gradually displaced the use of analog film and tape in photography and videography towards the end of the 20th century. The computing power necessary to process digital image capture also allowed computer-generated digital images to achieve a level of refinement close to photorealism.

Digital image sensors
The first semiconductor image sensor was the CCD, developed by Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith at Bell Labs in 1969. While researching MOS technology, they realized that an electric charge was the analogy of the magnetic bubble and that it could be stored on a tiny MOS capacitor. As it was fairly straightforward to fabricate a series of MOS capacitors in a row, they connected a suitable voltage to them so that the charge could be stepped along from one to the next. The CCD is a semiconductor circuit that was later used in the first digital video cameras for television broadcasting.

Early CCD sensors suffered from shutter lag. This was largely resolved with the invention of the pinned photodiode (PPD). It was invented by Nobukazu Teranishi, Hiromitsu Shiraki and Yasuo Ishihara at NEC in 1980. It was a photodetector structure with low lag, low noise, high quantum efficiency and low dark current. In 1987, the PPD began to be incorporated into most CCD devices, becoming a fixture in consumer electronic video cameras and then digital still cameras. Since then, the PPD has been used in nearly all CCD sensors and then CMOS sensors.

The NMOS active-pixel sensor (APS) was invented by Olympus in Japan during the mid-1980s. This was enabled by advances in MOS semiconductor device fabrication, with MOSFET scaling reaching smaller micron and then sub-micron levels. The NMOS APS was fabricated by Tsutomu Nakamura's team at Olympus in 1985. The CMOS active-pixel sensor (CMOS sensor) was later developed by Eric Fossum's team at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 1993. By 2007, sales of CMOS sensors had surpassed CCD sensors.

Digital image compression
An important development in digital image compression technology was the discrete cosine transform (DCT), a lossy compression technique first proposed by Nasir Ahmed in 1972. DCT compression is used in JPEG, which was introduced by the Joint Photographic Experts Group in 1992. JPEG compresses images down to much smaller file sizes, and has become the most widely used image file format on the Internet.

Mosaic
In digital imaging, a mosaic is a combination of non-overlapping images, arranged in some tessellation. Gigapixel images are an example of such digital image mosaics. Satellite imagery are often mosaicked to cover Earth regions.

Interactive viewing is provided by virtual-reality photography.

title: Digital image


text:
Talk:Google bombing

Google search "talentless hack" rating
The page claims that it itself is currently the number three return on Google for the words "talentless hack" - this is untrue. The page is, as of right now, the number TWO return. The irony does not cease to amuse me.--64.24.25.45 05:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * On 13-Nov-2008, "talentless hack" matched Wikipedia "Google bomb" as first, then Urban Dictionary. Those are not Google bomb examples, just that Google favors those websites for valid search results. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:43, 14 Nov 2008

French military victories (practical joke)
The article French military victories (practical joke) now redirects to Google bomb. Please merge any material if deemed relevant. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:41Z

Removed content
I've removed material similar to this a couple of times now. While it's probably verifiable that Google's algorithm has changed, and that they may claim this will slow or stop Google bombing, any speculation as to its effects (or "I saw it myself" anecdotal stories) are original research. Let's wait until reliable sources report on the actual effect rather than speculating on it. Seraphimblade 19:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 * How about the Search Engine Land article? Good enough? -- Seth Finkelstein 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 * There's tons out about it now, thanks for pointing it out. Looks like we're in need of a different update here, too: . I'll get their take on that put in as well. Seraphimblade 07:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

time for an update
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-googlebombs.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070126-8714.html —71.103.88.223 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

 * Already been done! See Seraphimblade 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 * http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/01/earlier_today_m.html —24.22.22.101 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

History
Maybe the expression "dumb motherf***er" in the History section of the article should be censored?... ;) -- JBatista 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * (moved to bottom) Actually, Wikipedia is not censored. You can read more about this at What Wikipedia is not.++ aviper2k7 ++ 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text content
Surely one critical aspect is missing from the main article. The term Google Bomb is used when the search term used does not appear in the page that ranks as number one. For example, with the "miserable failure" example linking to the whitehouse site, I'm fairly sure the phrase "miserable failure" doesn't appear in the content of the whitehouse page that (used to be) returned as the #1 Google result. In other words, it's only if the high-ranking site is unexpected in some way that you consider this a Google Bomb.

If the text DOES occur in the page, then the result isn't surprising, and you don't call it a google bomb.

For example, searching for "Google" will, (surprise surprise), return various Google sites as the top results. Since the text "Google" occurs on these pages, making the result unsurprising, then surely this doesn't count as a Google Bomb?

In which case, the important distinction needs to be made in the article that "Google Bomb" only applies to results where the page itself has no significant mention of the text used. -- Howard Wright

Not really. I mean, this is sometimes the case, but, e.g. "French military victories" does appear in the text of - the point is more in the methodology (distributed effort to link to the target page with the search term in the link text) and the _disproportionate_ rank, than simply binary presence/absence of the search terms. --Random832(tc) 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're actually in fairly close agreement here - I think "significant mention of the text" and "disproprortionate" are the key ideas. I agree that a simple check to see if the text appears at all on the page is not quite discerning enough (should have worded my first para more carefully). But, the point is the article currently says "A Google bomb is created if a large number of sites link to the page in this manner" (in this manner = using consistent anchor text). By this definition, search results for "Google", "Microsoft", "BBC", "The Whitehouse" etc etc would all be classed as Google Bombs! Appropriate wording needs to be added to make the point that ONLY when the anchor text used in the many links is deliberately chosen to be an unfair/imbalanced summary of the page contents is the effect deemed to be a link bomb or Google bomb. No? -- Howard Wright

Another example
Crazy cult. Guess who? --Jnelson09 23:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont know where to include this on the page, if at all, but the search 'officially' returns a top page on 'what tolken officially said about elf sex'. is there a list of googlebombs on a different page? if not does someone want to make one?

 * There has to be a news articel on that "bomb" before it could be added anywhere. 68.39.174.238 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Googlebomb
News reference:

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80269,4477719.html —71.145.136.90 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Example of accidental Google Bomb?
Performing a search for the term 'Fail' will give a link to the Irish political party Fianna Fáil, who are currently in government. It is likely this 'bomb' is a result of their name.

—193.120.137.237 (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

|Google Search Find Chuck Norris
Search "|Google Search Find Chuck Norris" but hit "I'm Feeling Lucky" (takes you to first result) I think this is a Google Bomb. —Xor24 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

lol. it could just be something funny that Google put in. 75.105.128.57 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

it's fake. it's just an imitation of google. --24.103.212.138 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated lede for 2-year defused bombs
14-Nov-2008: I have updated the top section to reflect changes from 2 years ago (+source footnotes): that "Before 2007" Google bombs worked on repeated anchor text, and "Google changed the ranking by January 2007 to list pages instead about the repeated linking of that text". Of course, to lower the rank of anchor-text repetitions, Google also ranked pages higher for other properties, but I won't mention the details of Google's later SEO algorithms, which are proprietary secrets intended to thwart linkspam when searching for real matches. Note that Google highly favors Wikipedia articles as search results in many cases, so wiki-pages could be pushed out of view if new secrets were revealed for moving ad-pages to the top of Google searches. In the past, over 300 similar linkspam pages have pushed real-content pages below the 31st page of Google results, so that's why I stated "pushed out of view" as a danger. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Listed talk-page subpages here
14-Nov-2008: I have listed the known subpages (the archive files) in a wikitable (see Help:Table) beside the Table of Contents. I also shortened several auto-signature comments. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:43, 14 Nov 2008

Removal of the curses
I have removed the bad word from it's position by replacing it with stars.

Take a sneaky peak:

In September 2000 the first Google bomb with a verifiable creator was created by Hugedisk Men's Magazine, a now-defunct online humor magazine, when it linked the text "dumb motherf***er" to a site selling George W. Bush-related merchandise.

-Yahya Al-Shiddazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.26.12.34 (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Please see WP:NOTCENSORED Copysan (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mr. Copysan Hohnsan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.113.11 (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How does Google Bombing work?
This article explains everything from the history of Google bombing to competitors. However it doesn't provide the simple explanation and the most basic question of the lay person: How does Google bombing work? What is the process involved in making a Google bomb?--Josh Is Dead (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Try Anthony Cox's War on the web article and see if that explains it better for you. Pawyilee (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody needs to mention xkcd for their ability to consistently googlebomb. I remember the good old days when they were #3 for "hardcore pornography" and #1 for "Roomba dueling harness"

Scientology Googlebomb
Is there a reason why the Scientology Googlebomb isn't up here? It's a good example of Googlebombing to communicate a political message by a group. Searching "Dangerous Cult" on Google had the Scientology main page as it's first result for quite a while. DarthHamsy (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Miserable Failure
I searched miserable failure on Ask.com, and the Bush page comes up first! 71.7.85.97 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Updating
Hi, the article seems strong, but can we get any more up to date info onto it. The last story seems to be from 2007. Best, Darigan 86.152.160.255 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I think it is a reasonably strong article, but the changes at Google largely make the practice moot. That is, SEO still matters, but the explicit practice (and the term) seem to have been limited to a particular time. - Halavais (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientology vs. Reddit
A few days ago, a redditor noticed that the search "is it possible to be happy" (the top search at the time) yielded a page from Scientology as its top result. Disgruntled, the redditor created a thread requesting links from others, and another redditor created an alternative site, which soon reached #2 on the results page. As I write this, this is still the case. I was involved in the bomb. Is this notable? -- Luser at 99.69.244.33 (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Vienna elections, october 2010
http://www.google.com/search?q=vollkoffer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a A search for the Austrian expression "Vollkoffer" (dumbass, idiot) links directly to the homepage of the head of the right wing extremist Freedom Party, HC Strache —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.166.240 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment
I removed "It's very funny, as it is actually true. The french have never won a battle". This is not true. The French have a in reality won battles in the past. Reference any Napoleonic history.

This is no longer a working google bomb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.177.9 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Google Bomb
When you Google, "StalkerNet" the first hit is the MTU Online Directory. The two have no correlation, and Michigan Tech does not refer to the directory as StalkerNet.

Cookie Defender (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 * As an MTU alumni from back in the day, I can say that the directory has a long history of being referred to by that name extending into the pre-google era. No, I can't back it up :D, but it is what everyone on campus refers to the directory as even now... dunno. 141.114.213.9 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Article needs credible references
I have checked the sources cited and many do not meet the standards of credible references for Wikipedia. They're personal blogs, personal opinions on Google answer, contents published on questionable pages such as commercial sites that aren't notable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

SEO contests are not google bombs
The page mentions two SEO contests as examples of google bombs, but although those contests may have used link-text techniques, they were not specifically attempts at google bombing. --  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.78.174 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Google bomb about defining an english person
Apparrently googling "Define an english person defines the wikipedia page for Cunt according to this article. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/google-8216glitch-returns-swearing-if-you-8216define-an-english-person/1631 124.170.55.254 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not been identified as a Googlebomb yet, also please remember to post new messages at the bottom :) -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  MerryXmas! 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"What defines an English person"
As of yet, this has not been identified as a googlebomb - so please do not add this case to the list. Thanks. -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  MerryXmas! 00:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

google bombs
the google bombs listed don't work since they are on this page Scientific Alan (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Googlebombing as harassment
Another use, which might be argued as political but really is much more directed and personal than that, is to use the process as a way to harass people, notably bloggers but not needfully limited to that.

Here is a specific case detailed out, but which actually involves multiple targets of a convicted domestic terrorist by the name of Brett Kimberlin:

Convicted Bomber Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, and Their Campaign of Political Terrorism

http://patterico.com/2012/05/25/convicted-bomber-brett-kimberlin-neal-rauhauser-ron-brynaert-and-their-campaign-of-political-terrorism/

The googlebombing is only a specific sub-part of the story, which is a pretty obnoxious tale in itself.

Wikipedia links appearing first in search because of references on bottom of pages
I think the person who wrote this thought that a page with many links on it gets higher in search results, but that's actually a page with many links to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleksanderVatov (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney "Completely Wrong" bomb

Someone should write something about this. Seems important enough to warrant a mention here. --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Google bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110122225401/http://www.collegenews.com:80/index.php?/article/corey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352/ to http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/corey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100403071831/http://topgoogletrends.netcashdaily.net:80/google-bomb-corey-feldman-is-hurting to http://topgoogletrends.netcashdaily.net/google-bomb-corey-feldman-is-hurting

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New Example: Clinton image for Pathological Lying - Add?
See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5a9l2o/holy_shit_google_pathological_lying_right_now/ | MK17b |  (talk)  03:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Google bomb. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C1282%2C41401%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?%2Farticle%2Fcorey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116120608/http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050601glaser/ to http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050601glaser/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122225401/http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?%2Farticle%2Fcorey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352%2F to http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?%2Farticle%2Fcorey_feldman_is_hurting_or_is_it_a_google_bomb_29603752352%2F

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) 04:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Google bomb. 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/20070127123936/http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050516-184202 to http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050516-184202
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050715083840/http://uber.nu/2001/04/06/ to http://uber.nu/2001/04/06/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513202317/http://www.yooter.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry050602-180255 to http://yooter.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry050602-180255
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100220095708/http://www.thepersiangulf.org/googlebomb.html to http://www.thepersiangulf.org/googlebomb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201091551/http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/01/29/scientology-bomb-cruises-past-google to http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/01/29/scientology-bomb-cruises-past-google

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) 05:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google bomb. 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/20051229221256/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_189602.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_189602.html

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) 12:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What to call this?
When I googled "rhett and link webby awards 2015", a photoshopped picture of them kissing came up. It links to an "article" that makes an erroneous and brazen claim that they are engaged... I think this happened because of the heavy use of keywords on the page. Either way, it's pretty strange and unusual that it's so high in the results. I know it's not a googlebomb but what is it classified as? I have not found a term describing this. Thanks. Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Probably an SEO strategy around keyword stuffing. Dietsociety (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

New (geeky) googlebomb
According to google, git is terrible, but wget can do no wrong. Search "wget is terrible" 72.74.131.76 (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

4th wall break?
"Since no later than 21 June 2015, the first result in a Google search for "miserable failure" is this article."

Are we allowed to say that kind of thing? Wikipedia usually refers to itself in 3rd person, even in its own article Polishedrelish (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Amber Heard Google Bomb?
Can someone consider the merit of an Amber Heard Google Bomb?

After the Depp Vs. Heard trial, if someone was to search the word "perjury", the first several images that appeared were of Amber Heard, this happened for several months after the trial results. MrScottBull (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Google bombing


text:
Talk:Exocet

Exocet = Flying fish
Can anyone confirm that this thing was named after the Exocoetidae, the flying fish family? If so it would be nice to make the link. --seglea 05:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * In a way; "exocet" is actually one of the common French words for flying fish, according to this info-nugget from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (part of their List of Canadian Acceptable Common Names for Fish and Seafood). --Wernher 21:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lokata
The Patents Office have no ability to require inventions to be kept secret. A patent is a form of legal protection against copying, not a reservoir of secrets.GraemeLeggett 12:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The UK Patent Office does have the power under Section 22 of the UK Patents Act 1977 to prohibit or restrict the publication of information prejudicial to the defence of the UK.

Is Exocet really the "Gabriel"?
Israeli sources state that the Exocet is not a French design at all, but merely a licensed copy of their highly successful Gabriel ship-to-ship missile, first used in combat in 1973. I can understand the French reluctance to admit this -- after all, they tried to abort the Gabriel by embargoing the ships intended to carry it. It should be noted that the Exocet was introduced shortly after the the Gabriel was developed.

 * Never heard such a thing... The Gabriel III does look a little bit like the Exocet (similar wings), but it entered service in 1982, while the Exocet was designed in 1967. The earlier versions of the Gabriel were quite different . The Gabriel was one of the first sea-to-sea missiles, so perhaps this is what they mean, but licenced copy doesn't seam very plausible to me. Rama 06:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw this mention of the "fact" and was about to remove it myself on to spot somebody actually managed to edit out this false information and that is all good.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/sea_missiles/gabriel/Gabriel.html

just by looking the pictures you can see the two weapons totally different not to mention the technical details. And the claim that exocet is israeli tech is nothing but a pipedream of immature zionists.

 * Gentleman. This is an article about a weapon, not politics, etc.  FYI, the first Gabriel were radio controlled to line of sight.  A lot like modern wire guided antitank missiles.  Only the data wire link is a radio data link and the optical line of sight is a radar.  Also, the Gabriel would be manually controlled through the radio link like an R/C aircraft.  The Exocet was a different kettle of fish.  It was launched with a location programmed in it to fly to before launch and when it reaches that "X" its radar turns on for the final attack phase.  To wit, where human control is over the Gabriel from launch to impact, with the Exocet, once it was launched, the human touch was devoid. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Accidentally" attacking the USS Stark
Can I just point out that the possibility of mistaking a frigate for an oil tankers are slim to none, or if the pilot of the plane in question was acting outside of orders then could someone please rephrase "On March 17, 1987, an Iraqi Mirage F-1 accidentally fired two exocets against the US Navy Guided missile frigate USS Stark (FFG-31) (an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate), mistaking the vessel for an Iranian tanker", as this still implies that the plane was under Iraqi control.
 * Well, the possibility of mistaking an Airbus A300 at high altitude for an attacking F14 is even more slim, but it also appened (Iran Air Flight 655) in that region. And 1904 a Russian fleet fired at fisher boats in the North Sea because they thought being under attack of Japanese torpedo boats (Dogger Bank incident). Such things happen. - Alureiter 13:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Radar cross sections are not the same as what the human eye can see. You can take two pieces of steel as tall as a man and a yard wide and notch them half-way up and slide them together and a radar will think it is a tanker.  The USAF and other air forces have glide decoys that have an item in the nose the size of a softball which is so efficient in reflection of radar waves that it makes a small drone look like a B-52.  Again, as slab sided as the Stark was, it was very easy to mistaken for a tanker.   Also,  tankers at that time were being fitted with primitive radar absorbing material (ie a type of paint the Germans developed in WW2 for submarine periscopes and snorkels) and when fully loaded are low in the water with only about two yards of the hull above the ocean surface. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

electronical countermeasures
Towards the bottom of the 'history' section of the article, regarding the falklands war, the following line appears:

Claims that the French gave out the electronical countermeasures to the British has been made, so they could trick the robot. But this hasn´t been vertified.

It is not very clear to me what is meant by this sentance. What are the electrionical countermeasures? and what is the robot? Canderra 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Label graphic?
Would it be possible to label the graphic showing what I assume is three different versions of the Exocet? Perhaps breaking it up into three separate images would be advisible.

d

exploded or not?
The one hit Sheffield failed to explode? or laterly be detonated by the fire? Could anyone show me the relative evidence ? 84.163.160.191 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm editting it to say the exocet exploded: the book The Battle for the Falklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins says that those interviewed who were aboard HMS Sheffield believe the warhead exploded, and so did other members of the task force, though the official navy report believes it may not have. The authors leaned towards detonation, as would I: the impact was textbook, and caused a massive fire, surely the explosive in the weapon would explode when exposed to so much heat, at the least, but nobody reports secondary explosions. Biscuit Knight 11:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would ask the question: did the crew of the Sheffield understand how an exocet works? Also was the impact textbook? Remember exocet is designed to puncture the ship's hull and detonate inside the ship, it does not detonate on impact, as some people think, as it has a delay proximity fuse. Crew members of Glamorgan, (the only RN ship to survive an exocet missile attack) reported hearing a loud thud, as the missile hit the ship, followed by an explosion, the warhead detonating as the delay proximity fuse winds down, and a secondary explosion when the missile, after penetrating the hangar door causes a fully fueled and armed Wessex helicopter to explode. So there were three defined events. The crew of Sheffield only reported one event, the thud as the missile hit the side of the ship. Modern exposives require a detonator to make them explode. Otherwise the fire raged inside the ship caused by burning propellant from the rocket motor, ignited diesel from a severed fuel line causing black acrid smoke to penetrate the forward part of the ship. The whole position was exacerbated with non fire retardant materials being used in construction, PVC cable sheaths on power cables, paint, which added fuel to the number of fires starting. With no firemain available the ship was doomed to a raging inferno which arguably burnt itself out some 4.5 days later. Remember the ship sank whilst undertow by Yarmouth in the TEZ, in rough seas, with water ingressing through the hole in the ships starboard side caused by the missile.Aquizard 23:50, 09 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm re-opening this question up because according to the Wikipedia page of the HMS Sheffield, there had been a MOD re-assessment of the attack which concluded in saying that the missile indeed exploded. According to the Wikipedia page of the HMS Sheffield (D80), quote "[Evidence of the warhead detonating is] supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of Sheffield, which reported in summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015, it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign." The source they specifically reference for the MOD re-assessment is "David Manley. 'The Loss of HMS Sheffield – A Technical Re-assessment" RINA Warship Conference, Bath, June 2015.' (Ref. 17 on the Wikipedia Page), which is a paper written by David Manley for the Warship Conference. I haven't been able to find a copy of the paper online (Beyond paying £10.00 for it on the RINA Website), but it's probably still worth mentioning within this page, the possibility that the missile indeed exploded, instead of definitively saying that it hadn't exploded. Patrickmen11 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

British Disabling of the Exocet?
Should the claim that Margaret Thatcher obtained the self-destruct codes from the French be included?

Margaret Thatcher forced François Mitterrand to give her the codes to disable Argentina's deadly French-made missiles during the Falklands war by threatening to launch a nuclear warhead against Buenos Aires, according to a book.

Thatcher 'threatened to nuke Argentina'

Mcspiff 13:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

———————————

The above is all nonsense. There is no such thing as a self destruct codes on any production military missiles in existence now, or that have ever existed. What on earth could would possess a nation like France (or any other country) to include a kill switch that could be used by the enemy to completely neutralize their most significant technological advantage by simply broadcasting a code? Moreover, how could a nation hope to sell the Exocet if other nations found out the missile had this liability? Furthermore, we know it never existed because three British task force ships were sunk with just five missiles, including one ship that was carrying all their Chinooks and a dozen Wessex (very badly needed to transport men and material in the war).

On top of that, the British already had dozens of Exocets, and they therefore knew its radar's frequency. The UK was the first country in the world to develop operational radar. They were, and are, experts. As far as I know, the only citation that has ever been given for this claim that the French gave *the codes* was the psychoanalyst of a long dead blow hard politician, and this very dubious evidence when all the facts surrounding are adduced. CE2605:6000:EE87:D800:887E:1059:B5BF:A4D0 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV and general quality problems
1. Argentina ridiculously claimed that a combined Exocet/A-4C Skyhawk aircraft attack on May 30 damaged HMS Invincible; the British didn't need to deny it.

To someone who isn't British this smacks of clear POV. It's also unclear - is it the combination that is unlikely, or is it something to do with the ship itself? It wasn't there, wasn't manufactured yet, etc.

2. There are persistent claims from Israeli sources, vigorously denied by the French, that the Exocet is not an original French design but a licensed copy of the Israeli Gabriel sea to sea missile.

I would imagine these were 'vigorously denied'. Wikipedia's policy requires sourcing of claims - this is unsourced and should be removed.

3. Secrecy of the Exocet suffered a blow in the late 1970s when a civilian in Falmouth in Cornwall, England accidentally independently duplicated the Exocet’s navigation system and, despite order from the Patents Office to keep it secret, sold it to the public as a small boat type navigation system called Lokata.

This is also unclear and unsourced. Why should a missile have a navigation system? I can think of several ideas but it isn't self evident. In any case it should probably be 'accidentally AND independently'.

4. Overall, this article appears less polished and more coloquial than other missile articles. It also feels as if it were written by a Brit with a specific POV. It's an interesting read and I can't find anything else to improve other than the above, I'm still left with an nagging itch...

89.0.157.123 16:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Roy

The 30 May attack was carried out by a combined Etendard/Skyhawk combination, with one Etendard carring the last (fifth) AM39 Exocet missile. Exocet, is a fire and forget antiship cruise missile. Most Guided Missiles have a system of guidance, this can be via radar, radio, wire, or an internal navigation system (INS). Exocet has an INS which is gyroscopically aligned, for the flight phase, and an internal radar seeker head, for the terminal phase. The Etendard has an AGAVE radar, weapons system and computerised navigational system. All of these systems must communicate with each other, which is why additional avionics is inserted into the aircraft, to enable the interfacing to be complete. Prior to launching a missile, data transfers take place with the pilot programming the missiles INS with data from the AGAVE radar illuminating the target on the radar screen, programming the data input to the missile from the weapons system, and navigational system. On release, the INS flies the missile to a designated location, the radar seeker head then turns on and looks for a target and locks onto it. Aquizard 23:50, 09 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.148.11 (talk)

CIA providing exocets
The claim that the CIA provided Exocets to the Iraqis sounds a bit odd. After all, they didn't need the CIA, they could buy them from the French with no problem at all, as far as I know KostasG 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not "a bit odd" - it is completely and totally absurd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.44.246 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Exocet as obsolete?
"In many cases, the near-obsolete Exocet missiles have been replaced by more modern and updatable ship to ship missiles such as the American Harpoon Missile on newer warships, including those in the Royal Navy."

Can anyone give specifics to prove this? Both the Exocet and Harpoon (as well as other missiles) have long operational histories and have been updated by the introduction of new versions with improved performance over the years (for example, the ranges of newer Exocet and Harpoon missile have both been marked increased, and both missiles have received electronic/guidance enhancements). Specifically, one cannot compare the newer Harpoons that the UK is receiving to older Exocets in its inventory (or vice versa) and claim that the Exocet is obsolete.

Also, the Exocet (and most tactical missiles) are very "updatable", as proven by the many versions of this (and other missiles). For example, the latest versions of the Sidewinder are still in service in the U.S. and many other countries.

If not, I will remove the above paragraph.
 * 15:45 & 15:46, 26 September 2009 User:96.246.125.189

 * Good call. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 * After the Falklands war the Royal Navy could not buy any more Exocets for political reasons. Therefore they shifted to buying American made Harpoon missiles at a higher cost for all new vessels. There may have been a technical advantages but they were alwasy described in public sources as less important. 62.143.155.113 (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Cobblers, the RN switched to Harpoon as they were cheaper, the installtion lighter (a key consideration on the Type 23), range longer and they had more reliable fuzing. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding effects against aircraft carriers
I feel that the text "contrary to some claims it is no serious threat to large warships, like aircraft carriers" is probably misleading for the vast amount of readers encountering this claim. If this serious threat is supposed to be understood to mean "effective enough to sink an aircraft carrier", i think it need to be pointed out that a direct hit from an Exocet on an aicraft carrier, at least for the smaller non-supercarrier classes like the Invincible class aircraft carrier or the Principe de Asturias (R11), is likely to at least adversely affect the combat power of the ship.

The information that is used to motivate the "no serious threat" claim is supposed to be "a recent study by the Russians about the effect of missile boat antishipping missiles. 3 hits to destroy a light cruiser, 1 to 2 hits for a destroyer or frigate. Russian missile boat antishipping missile have far larger warheads than the Exocet", the information taken from the refernce book World Naval Weapon Systems from 1994 by Norman Friedman. I've checked this source up, and the source talks about destroying a ship in the sense of sinking it and the missile in question is the SS-N-2 Styx. In other words, the information from this source does not preclude a hit from an Exocet having a big effect on the combat effectivness on a ship. It is easy to see how for instance a hit on the island, on any carrier, will destroy most of the sensor systems, leaving the carrier blind. It is also easy to see that a large part of all possible hits are likely to adversely affect air operations at least for a time. And if the carrier can't launch planes, the combat effectiveness of the ship is close to zero. Thus, it is not at all unlikely that a hit will in effect negate the whole combat power of the ship. In other words it is a at least a serious threat to the combat effectiveness of carriers (If perhaps not a serious threat to the carriers themselves).

But, all the above conclusions is based on the premise that the attack consists of a single missile. The claim in the article that the Exocet is no serious threat to an aircraft carrier is probably meant to say that a single Exocet is no serious threat to an aircraft carrier, which would follow from the Russian source. However, as the text stands now, one gets the impression that the weapon system Exocet is no serious threat to an aircraft carrier. But, nowhere a source is cited, neither have i ever heard about such a source, that claims that for instance four or five simultaneous Exocet hits would pose no serious threat to a carrier. Indeed, the russian study gives some support to the notion that with an increasing number of missiles, you could sink most types of ships. With saturation attacks becoming common doctrine for many navies, it is likely that any attack on an aircraft carrier would involve at least a couple of missiles. I think most will agree that for instance four simultaneous hits near the waterline would bring a huge risk to a small carrier (Remember that the Principe de Asturias is only a bit shy of 200 meters long, probably not much larger than the "light cruiser" that the russian study is talking about), even if the warheads in the missiles are smaller than russian AShMs. So, the fact of the matter seems to be that the weapon system Exocet, which is what the article is about, poses a large and extremely dangerous threat to any carrier, especially smaller ones.

Also remember, that the russian study had to have been performed well before 1994, which was the publication date of the book it is cited from, and the missile was the SS-N-2 Styx, one of the earliest and most primitive AShMs. I would be surprised if the Exocet, in it's current and most modern form, Block III, isn't one hell of a lot more likely to hit it's target (Thus a larger threat) than a missile of the late 1980s/early 1990s. The SS-N-2 Styx didn't even have sea-skimming capability at first (Don' know about later versions)and flew at about 100 meters height. The Exocet, which is meant to hit a ship low, near the weaterline, would probably be more dangerous (eg more likely to sink a ship because of the low hit) in this sense also.

I can't reach any conclusion but that the text has to be changed from it's present form. I'm going to change the article and write something along the lines that a single exocet poses no serious threat to an aircraft carrier, however it is likely to render the carrier combat ineffective, but a few missiles are likely to sink most, even larger, ships. Comments appreciated. --MusicToDieTo (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir I was the one that put the reference in. There are many others in the decade after the Falklands War ended, but I would spend a week going through my magazine and books to find them. This issue was an extreme debate after the Falklands War, with many claiming that most navies were out-dated because a 50 ton missile boat could sink almost any warship. The sales people of Aerospatiale contributed a lot to it. It was a lot like the claims after the 1973 War that the wire guided missile on jeeps and pick up trucks had made tanks obsolete. It is something I will try and get back with you soon. But ask yourself one question: Why after WW1 did the armored light cruiser become less and less important and totally unarmored destroyer so important? Has a lot to do with why full body armor became less and less used after the 16th century.--Jackehammond (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * This bit stood out - the original wording implied that it couldn't even hit larger vessels, and the claim that it posed no serious threat to aircraft carriers and so forth seemed oddly worded. Nonetheless I can understand the point that was being made - the missile is not a magic death-bolt that can crack a battleship in two - and I've tried to rewrite the line so as to get that across. The description of a detonating but not fatal-to-the-ship hit on the Glamorgan helps get this across as well. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that a super etendart on the first picture or a mirage III ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.38.184 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Argentine Navy Super Etendard. Probably one of the aircraft of the Falkland's War. What is interesting in that photo is the laser-designation pod. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Exocet. 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/20101122064540/http://falklands.info/history/hist82article17.html to http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article17.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001005953/http://www.damen.nl/Upload/Downloads/mID_5708_cID_4719_DAMEN-NEWS-7-LR.pdf to http://www.damen.nl/Upload/Downloads/mID_5708_cID_4719_DAMEN-NEWS-7-LR.pdf

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) 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exocet. 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/20120206212020/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D8947AC-D8DC-4BE7-8DCC-C9C623539BCF/0/boi_hms_sheffield.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D8947AC-D8DC-4BE7-8DCC-C9C623539BCF/0/boi_hms_sheffield.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223051413/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html

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) 06:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Quanta Questa ?
Hi - what do these puppies cost? I'm a dictator of a small banana republic, and I think we need something like this to keep the low life from the small banana republic next door from stealing our thunder.

But seriously folks, the price tag is a key peace of information, pun intended. Humans need to assess their priorities, and writing articles that gloss over the folly of believing in the mythology of "military intelligence" is a pretty sure way to terminate our species early.

just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

MM38 (surface-launched) ... No longer produced (1970)
This is not true the MM38 was not longer produced since 1970, probably the production was not started in 1970, it go in service in 1973 Francomemoria (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The attack to the HMS Invincible
Accordion to all the Argentinian sources the HMS Invencible was damaged by a Exocet misile and by bombs. This information is considered as a fact in Argentina. Hehex2020 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 * And never happened, it's ridiculous to continue claiming this despite the overwhelming wealth of evidence to the contrary such as the ship sailing home intact in 1982. You might want to stop this before you make an idiot of yourself. WCM email 00:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, for you this no happened but for Argentinos this happened, so my intention is to put an “according to”, and that’s it. Hehex2020 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 * No. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we aren't in the business of balancing fact with fiction. Kahastok talk 19:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There are to explain both side of topic Hehex2020 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Not when one side believes a Fringe Theory. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

For you it is a marginal theory. It is a one-sided theory and, as a theory with arguments, it needs to be included in the article. Hehex2020 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The theory of attack of the HMS invencible is supported for all the Argentinean armed forces and to hold it they were made studies like an interrogation to the pilots. This theory isn’t supported by few people because the most of the Argentineans support it. Hehex2020 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They can believe the moon to be made of green cheese if they like but it won't make it suitable content for wikipedia.  WCM email 12:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Why can't I put that in Argentina and part of Latin America believe that HMS Invincible was damaged? If this theory is supported by the Argentinian government. Wikipedia don’t prohibits put that exist an other theory or vision of the facts Hehex2020 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

From WP:FALSEBALANCE: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

You are simply wrong, Wikipedia is not required to repeat nonsense, we choose not to repeat it. WCM email 15:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The belief of the attack and later damage of the HMS Invencible isn’t a minority view, because the most of Latin America and Argentina belief in it, and the idea of the HMS Invencible wasn’t damaged isn’t commonly accepted mainstream scholarship because a completely country with 45 millón of population and with its owns government's instituitions support this theory. I am not supporting an extraordinary claim because I never said that’s the carrier was attacked and later sank, I am only saying that according to the Argentinean government the HMS Invencible was damaged but this isn’t accepted by England. Aslo that, there are a prebious antecent in the article about the attack to the World trade center, in taht case, there are menstion about the conspiracy theorues about the 9/11, with two big diferents: the conspirancy theroies about the 9/11 arent supported by some government and dont have testimonies to suport it. Hehex2020 (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 * It most certainly is a fringe theory and utter bollocks.
 * Here for example is a a rather special video that can be dated precisely, it documents the hand over of HMS Invincible to HMS Illustrious. It can only be August 1982 as HMS Invincible has yet to be equipped with the Phalanx CIWS, HMS Illustrious was fitted with Phalanx during fitting out (as it happens my dad was on board Lusty finishing her off on the voyage down).  The only other Invincible class carrier HMS Ark Royal was still under construction at the time.  You'll note not one scratch.
 * Now if I could be bothered I could even dig up the Spanish press article from the 15 June when the foreign press went on board, 100s of photos on the IWM website, the pictures of her homecoming. I could go on and on and I rather suspect you'd still be trying to claim it as fact.  WCM email 17:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not here to debate if the Carrier were damaged or no, I am here to put in this article that’s according to the Argentine government the HMS Invencible was damaged and for the attack two pilots received the highest medal of the Argentinians armed forces and in the airplanes involved in the attack there are paints in that’s figures the carrier with the designation “averiado” (damaged in English). https://http2.mlstatic.com/cartel-avion-super-etendard-3a-202-armada-guerra-malvinas-D_NQ_NP_768785-MLA31418894022_072019-F.jpg Hehex2020 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's WP:FRINGE, it's deeply sad that they are still claiming this 38 years later. Bye now. WCM email 17:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Bro, in each your words it’s visible that’s you’re more for the honor of the queen or anything else instead for the history and the knowledge. If you don’t send to me arguments to don’t edit this article to put “according to Argentina the HMS Invencible was damaged” I am going to edit it. Hehex2020 (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Argentine claim to have hit Invincible with Exocets and then bombs is clearly untrue, although unlike their claims to have hit Hermes, does seem to have been believed by the Argentines themselves. In short - Two Super Etendards, with one carrying Argentina's last AM-39 led four bomb armed A-4s (which weren't an escort in any normal meaning of the word). The Exocet was launched at a suitably large radar target (which was in fact probably HMS Exeter, not Invincible which was well outside the range of the Exocet), while the A-4s followed the smoke trail and eventually came across a ship on the horizon, which appeared to have smoke coming from her. Two of the A-4s were shot down, probably by Sea Darts from Exeter while the remaining two attacked the ship, which they identified as Invincible, but was in fact Avenger, which was undamaged. Incidentally Exeter thought that its Sea Dart missed the Exocet - it was Avenger that had claimed to have shot it down with its 4.5 inch gun. The Argentine claim is solely based on the account of two A-4 pilots, who were attacking at extremely low level, having just had two of their formation shot down. Discussion of this claim, which is mistaken and known to be wrong, is undue for this article.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

In your comment you are that’s the attack happened so is necessary to put in this article that according to Argentina the Carrier was damaged although the British deny it. Hehex2020 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Simple question, does anyone out side the Latin countries support the claim, has (after 40 years) any evidence come forward form dockyard workers or contractors that Invincible was damaged?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not here to proved that’s the HMS Invencible was damaged, I am here to put in this article that’s according to the argentine government the carrier was damaged, nothing else. According to the NPV is need in all the articles put all the visions about a fact without taking sides. Also, in your comment you ask if anyone outside Latin America think that the carrier was damaged; but for you a side supported by a Latin American country is less valid than a side supported by a european county? Hehex2020 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

From WP:FALSEBALANCE: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Emphasis added.

Stop being so confrontational, stop making this an issue of nationality. This is a matter of evidence and the overwhelming level of evidence is that such claims are nonsense. There is no merit in continuing to demand they are included. WCM email 16:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also remember that this is an article about the missile, not the Falklands war - the Argentinian claims of hitting Invincible is already discussed in the Falklands War article and the HMS Invincible article - they don't really need to be repeated in every single possible place, especially as the the article is already far too biased towards the Falklands war - just compare how long the article spends talking about six missiles fired in the Falklands compared with the dozens of Exocets fired in the Iran-Iraq War, with only the attack on the USS Stark being mentioned at all.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Is nessesary to put that’s according to Argentina the HMS Invincible was damaged because in that attack was used the missile and in the article only appear the British version, omitting the argentine version. I am not speaking about put the arguments each side, i am only saying to put thats according Argentina the facts occured of other way. Hehex2020 (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If appear more the argentine use of the missile than the Iraq use of the missile is because Argentina was more successful. Hehex2020 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Hehex2020, would you accept putting into the article something like: "The Argentine government mistakenly claimed that HMS Invincible was damaged during the attack?" That achieves what you seem to want, that the Argentine govt made that claim, and what everybody else wants, that the claim was false. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I would not accept because the idea of put two points of view is the lectors can research about all the sides and reach to a own conclusion. If for you the HMS Invencible wasn’t damaged good for you! But is need to all the lectors of this article know that exist an other point of view besides the British. Hehex2020 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:FALSEBALANCE don't you understand? WCM email 09:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You might find this helpful. WCM email 12:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The NPOV says that all the significant points of view should appear in the article. For example in the article about the 9/11 appear the conspiracy theories about the terrorist attack. Hehex2020 (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And please don’t send me more arguments supporting the idea that the carrier wasn't damaged, because I am not here to discuss that. Hehex2020 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Well, since we have overwhelming evidence that the Invincible was not damaged. And zero evidence that it was. We are not going to pretend that it is not the case. At this point, I suggest that you drop the stick as there is a clear consensus against your proposed changes. --McSly (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There isn’t envídenme about why I can’t put that’s according to the argentine government the carrier was damaged. I am not speakimg arguments about damaged of the carrier because this isn’t the case, I am argumenting that’s according to argentina the carries was damaged, nothing else. My idea is maintain the British theory and add the argentine. Hehex2020 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * There is no British theory or Argentine theory. There is the fact that the Invincible was not damaged. --McSly (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * That the Invincible was not damaged is verifiable from reliable published sources independent of the subjects. That's what matters on Wikipedia, not British or Argentine claims. If the reliable published sources backed up the ship being damaged, that's what would be here. But they don't, so we don't. BilCat (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not discussing about of the carrier was damaged or no. If for Argentina the carries wasn’t damaged; where is the problem? Hehex2020 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I have no clue what that means, and I strongly suspect you don't either. BilCat (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the last comment but I got lost in translation. The only thing I want to say is that I am not here to discuss whether the carrier was damaged or not, so the arguments about that are not relevant, the only relevant arguments in this discussion are the ones on whether the Argentine government considers the HMS Invincible damaged or not. I respect the idea on the Invincible not being damaged but according to the Argentine government (and it must be taken into account that 9 different governments took place after the dictatorship) the HMS Invincible was damaged, so i intend to demonstrate that there is more than just one point of view on the case, wether you consider it right or not. Hehex2020 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources state that it is still commonly believed in Argentina and still claimed by the government that HMS Invincible was struck by a Exocet missile? The English language literature is very clear on this being a wartime myth. Martin Middlebrook does a good job of explaining the myth in his 1989 book Argentine Fight for the Falklands, where he demonstrates that this didn't happen but notes that three out of four Argentine histories of the war and the Argentine Government claimed that it did at the time. If this attack was to be covered in the article, it should be noted that Invincible wasn't hit, as the literature is very firm on this point - it's not a matter of there being two sides to the story. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You don’t understand right? I am saying that’s according to Argentina the Carrier was damaged. For example in the Spanish article about the Exocet appear the idea that’s the HMS Invencible was damaged. If for Argentina the carrier was damaged; where is the problem? Because the reader would can search about this and later create an own opinion. Hehex2020 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is very clear consensus in the literature on the war that Invincible was not damaged in this attack. Middlebrook for instance provides an excellent account of how this myth came about (a bungled debriefing of exhausted pilots being whipped up for propaganda value by the Argentine regime) and why it's false. Various works have pointed out that it would have been impossible for the British to have covered this up for any length of time if they'd wanted to, and especially for almost 40 years! Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Hehex2020, you do not understand. This is an encyclopedia where facts are stated. You only give two versions of a fact if there is genuinely two possible versions of that fact, which in this case there are not. What you are saying, about the Argentine version of events needing to go into wikipedia is probably correct, because it is notable, BUT, not in this article. It would fit better in an article about state propaganda, or the Argentine psyche, or the Latin American nationalist irredentist culture. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There isn’t state propaganda because from the last dictatorship 9 different democratic governments took place, and each one with the mission of being as different from the dictatorship as possible. In all the articles with more than one version of the facts, All the versions are takes into account, including conspiracy theories supported by pages like “www.conspiracy666.com”. I think that the argentine version should also appear in this article because it also does in the Spanish article about the Exocet missile. Hehex2020 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The Spanish Wikipedia, for those unaware, takes a pretty extreme pro-Argentine editorial line when it comes to anything to do with the Falkland Islands. The fact that they (also) include nationalist propaganda on this point is in no way surprising. Kahastok talk 16:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And who says that’s the English Wikipedia don’t take an extremely pro-British editorial line about the war? I’m only saying because are you all that don’t let me put the truth with a neutral point of view such as “according to Argentina the carrier was damaged”. Hehex2020 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because that wouldn't be neutral as it didn't happen. Facts have no nationality, they just are.  WCM email 17:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

But according to some governments it happened, and according to some others it didn’t. Hence, the two versions should be mentioned. Hehex2020 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * This article isn't reporting the British government's view, but what is reported is reliable published sources independent of the British government. That the British government's view agrees with those reliable independent sources isn't the point either. BilCat (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, a lot of reliable sources fron the argentina historiography exist that support the version on the HMS Invincible being damaged. It is important to bear in mind that the argentine historiography about this war is probably bigger than the british. Hehex2020 (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The user WCM has been editing the part of the article regarding the HMS Invincible. I think that if he can add information I also can add that “According to the Argentinian government the HMS Invincible was damaged.” Hehex2020 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 * No, as it was explained to you multiple times. --McSly (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

When did you explain that? Because the only thing that I can see here is a long discussion in which nobody has given me a single argument proving that the argentinian government and the argentine historiography don't say that the carries was damaged and until you give a single valid argument you are proving me right. Hehex2020 (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * You've had plenty of explanation, the best you can expect is During the war Argentina claimed to have damaged the ship and continues to do so to this day,[28] although no evidence of any such damage has been produced or uncovered.[29][30]. What we won't do is give equal credence to the Argentine claims with the facts as reported in the overwhelming majority of the literature.  And having just read the Spanish wiki version of this article, it is so far away from what would be acceptable here I am genuinely surprised that the Spanish wiki is not acutely embarassed by it. WCM email 10:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That couldn't be said because the neutral opinion policy would be broken when stating that there's no evidence, when Argentina and all the argentinian historiography (that is very big) still keep the idea that the carrier was damaged because they have evidence. In the spanish article about the exocet missile the story is told from both points of view and both argentinian and british arguments are mentioned and seen equaly. I'm really starting to doubt that you speak or at least understand Spanish. Hehex2020 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * You mistakenly believe that all opinions are equal and must be expressed accordingly. That is incorrect, the correct view is that whilst you are entitled to hold an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense.  The Spanish wikipedia entry is utter nonsense, it is a classic example of the problem with that wikipedia in that the article is held hostage by Argentine nationalists who will allow nothing but the official Argentine version of events; it makes no attempt to be balanced.  You attempt to portray this as a dichotomy between two opposing view points - British and Argentine.  In fact, it is not, as you have been repeatedly told it is a fringe view that continues to be held in Argentina, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the published literature.  There is no such dichotomy and your persistence is pushing this fringe theory is wearing on the community's patience here.  Time to drop the WP:STICK. WCM email 14:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No changes are realistically coming out of this discussion. There is clear consensus against Hehex's proposal. I suggest we close the discussion here. Kahastok talk 16:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Without consensus
The discussion about the HMS Invincible was closed "because there was consensus", then I want to ask which consensus are you talking about when the users BilCat, kahastok and Nick-D are found as "Some of the good guys" on WCM's profile page. The discussion was closed withouth even letting me answer WCM's comment. Hehex2020 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are sources that back the Argentine verssion:

--Malvinero10 (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The "Argentine version" is a fictional account, considered a WP:FRINGE theory and which contradicts the overwhelming weight of material in the written literature. In a wiki which consider WP:RS and WP:V it would never see the light of day.  I am closing this as an attempt to re-open a closed discussion.  WCM email 09:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Attribution
Text and references copied from Exocet and Attack on HMS Invincible, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Text and references copied from Exocet Talk to Attack on HMS Invincible, See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pakistan Naval Air Arm Westland Sea King.jpg

title: Talk:Exocet


text:
HMS M33

HMS M33 is an M29-class monitor of the Royal Navy. Built in 1915, she saw active service in the Mediterranean during the First World War and in Russia during the Allied Intervention in 1919. She was used subsequently as a mine-laying training ship, fuelling hulk, boom defence workshop and floating office, being renamed HMS Minerva and Hulk C23 during her long life. She passed to Hampshire County Council in the 1980s and was then handed over to the National Museum of the Royal Navy in 2014. A programme of conservation was undertaken to enable her to be opened to the public. HMS M33 is located within Portsmouth Historic Dockyard and opened to visitors on 7 August 2015 following a service of dedication. She is one of only three surviving Royal Navy warships of the First World War and the only surviving Allied ship from the Gallipoli Campaign, the other being the Ottoman minelayer Nusret, preserved in Çanakkale.

Construction
M33 was built as part of the rapid ship construction campaign following the outbreak of the First World War by Harland and Wolff, Belfast. Ordered in March 1915, she was launched in May and commissioned in June; an impressive shipbuilding feat, especially considering that numerous other ships of her type were being built in the same period.

First World War
Armed with a pair of 6 in guns and having a shallow draught, M33 was designed for coastal bombardment. Commanded by Lieutenant Commander Preston-Thomas, her first active operation was the support of the British landings at Suvla during the Battle of Gallipoli in August 1915. She remained stationed at Gallipoli until the evacuation in January 1916. For the remainder of the war she served in the Mediterranean and was involved in the seizure of the Greek fleet at Salamis Bay on 1 September 1916.

Russian Intervention
M33 next saw service, along with five other monitors (HMS M23, HMS M25, HMS M27, HMS M31 and HMS Humber (1914)), which were sent to Murmansk in 1919 to relieve the North Russian Expeditionary Force. In June, M33 moved to Archangel and her shallow draught enabled her to travel up the Dvina River to cover the withdrawal of British and White Russian forces. At one time the river level was so low the ship's guns had to be removed and transported by cart. M25 and M27 were not so fortunate and had to be scuttled on 16 September 1919 after running aground. M33 safely returned to Chatham in October.

Harbour service and restoration
In 1925 M33 became a mine-laying training ship and was renamed HMS Minerva on 3 February 1925. She went through a number of roles for the remainder of her career including fuelling hulk and boom defence workshop. Her name was changed again in 1939, this time to Hulk C23. In 1946 she became a floating office at the Royal Clarence Victualling Yard at Gosport. Put up for sale in 1984, she eventually passed to Hampshire County Council. Listed as part of the National Historic Fleet, she is now located at Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, close to HMS Victory. She was opened to the public for the first time as part of the National Museum of the Royal Navy on 7 August 2015. M33 is one of only three surviving British warships that served during the First World War, the others being HMS Caroline (1914) and HMS President (1918), although a number of auxiliary vessels and small craft have also survived.

title: HMS M33