Talk:Skirmish at Many Branch Point

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

South America: Falklands Low‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance).

awful?

this article is awful, it is incoherent and does not properly explain what happened or the background context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.156.146 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outnumbered?

It seems that the SAS were outnumbered. http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/sas.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.99.232 (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton's patrol was 4-men strong, and two men managed to go away according to the website you mention. Moreno (and Argentinian official sources) assert that the Argentinian patrol also comprised four commandos. Not decisively "outnumbererd", I guess.--Darius (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 4 man section is standard for the SAS. The numbers thing bothers me Darius, just checked with Freedman and the official citation for Hamilton's MC. Both speak of the patrol being outnumbered. And the thing is Hamilton's citation is in part based upon the testimony of the Argentine commander on West Falkland. If it were just the British account that was at odds I'd put it down to the fog of war but its at odds with the testimony of the Argentine commander as well. Something is not right here. Justin talk 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was fearing at first that we have a case of two conflicting secondary sources, both based on the same primary source (Lt. Duarte).

I noted later, however, that Ruiz Moreno doesn't mention a 4-men SAS patrol; the only British soldiers involved in the shooting were Hamilton and Fonseca. Thus, your conclusions are right, Justin: even if the SAS undercover OP was manned by 4 soldiers, two of them didn't play any role in the skirmish, although they were forced to get out after being compromised. "Britain Small Wars"'s statement is true, then; the SAS was outnumbered, since only two men faced a 4-commandos patrol. I will edit the page consequently.--Darius (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2008 edit

It's OK Ryan. Woodward only refers to Sea Harriers. As you wrote in the summary, the GR3s were, on the contrary, forced to perform extremely low level flyings in order to avoid radars, but compromising accuracy and bomb's fuses reliability (I read this in Jerry Pook's book). On the other hand, the same happened to the Argentine pilots against naval targets--Darius (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victory?

On what basis is this classified as a victory? It was a minor skirmish at best and the outcome indecisive. It would be better to simply not put anything there at all. Also the language is incorrect as pointed out previously, the SAS are not commandos. Darius, I'm surprised you would insist on this. Justin talk 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also "clash" is a very informal way of referring to a engagement/skirmish, used more in story-telling. Not to mention the use of a capital letter giving the word unwarranted importance. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justin, Ryan and Kernel Saunders. It's OK, I agree that "Many Branch point" was only a minor and no significative engagement. I only insisted on this just because no official Wikipedia policy prevents a result entry on the battle-infobox, despite the scale of the encounter (See for exampleOperation Basalt). There is no problem, however: I accept the opinion of the majority, guys :). --Darius (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "skirmish" is a better choice of words as well, "engagement" implies a planned attack, whereas these two patrols basically just bumped into each other. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, upon further reading this whole article reads like a war novel "Lieutenant Duarte ordered: "Hands up!". The answer was a 5.56 mm burst," I'm gonna check the sources quickly. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a quick look and my concerns are:

The Background sections is a bit too broad, talking about air defence etc, it should focus on more on why both sides were patrolling West Falkland
There is a large unreferenced paragraph in the Action that contains a lot of quotes.
I think these two sentences should have sources of British origin

"The fate of Captain Hamilton became known to his comrades only when the garrison surrendered to the British on June 15."
"The islanders refused to provide a British flag for Hamilton's burial." This one seems to imply that the Falkland islanders didn't give a shit a Hamilton's burial, I'm that sure you (Darius) doesn't believe that's to be the case, especially we look at the burials of Ted Ball and Felix Artuso. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, this is the Spanish quote for the "Hands Up!" incident:

En ese instante salió un hombre de entre las piedras: era un mulato con grandes bigotazos, con un pasamontañas verde de la Marina Argentina en su cabeza, vistiendo uniforme camuflado. Todavía dudando, el oficial se asomó y le gritó: -Argentinos o Ingleses? Sorprendido, el hombre se le quedó mirando. Y Duarte volvió a gritarle: -Hands up, hands up! (Manos arriba). En tal momento el individuo pegó un salto al costado y abrió fuego sobre los Comandos. Una ráfaga de 5,56 rebotó en la piedra delante de Duarte y le llenó los ojos de polvo. You can verified the text searching on Google Books, there is a snippet view of Ruiz Moreno's work. I had been a bad short-stories writer, so a war novel is too much for me :).

Thanks for the page the number. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the fate of Hamilton and his burial, I think that there is a bit of Argentine PoV on Moreno's statement, based on the words of the Argentine officer in charge (Duarte). Nevertheless, Moreno is perfect valid (in my opinion) as a secondary source according to Wikipedia guidelines. I agree with you, however, that with are in need of a British source to confirm that. Thanks.--Darius (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thankyou for providing the source, I'll add it to the article and rewrite that section to make it more encyclopaedic. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, seems other people have an interest in this flag. [1] Ryan4314 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unindent

Thanks for the change Darius, appreciate it. Justin talk 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the right thing to do, Justin. Thanks to you.--Darius (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

An article exists that covers this event, Gavin Hamilton (British Army officer), why does this minor event (in terms of the conflict merit its own article? Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nothing other than the fact it is the only land engagement on West Falkland and it speaks of the action not only Hamilton. Justin talk 10:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton was the action, this would be a speedy delete without him. Also, the British sources state very clearly that he was heavily outnumbered, only using the Argentine sources make this a POV fork Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree and if I may so thats a rather narrow and negative attitude, the other perspective on this action is perfectly valid. With the clean up it makes for a reasonable article. Though I remained bothered about the number's disparity. Justin talk 10:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, if I may, its a rather crucial point and the crux of my argument here and the main reason I added the globalise tag. The Argentine view is only one side of the story (fairly obviously) and the article omits most of the British sources. So how many people attacked Captain Hamilton? Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

Darius, see [2] I've cleaned up some of the English useage, tidied up gramnmar and added some English translations. Are you happy with those proposed changes? Justin talk 10:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Justin. It's fine for me. (Great translation of quotes). Thanks a lot.--Darius (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Should we move the article to Skirmish at Many Branch Point. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objections.--Darius (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done the page move and reverted to my cleaned up version with tyhe text added by Kernel Saunters. Everyone happy? Justin talk 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indubitably ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmations

Once the British achieved air supremacy over the islands, the Argentine elite force became isolated.[5] The helicopters which should have flown them back to Stanley were destroyed by GR3 Harriers near Mount Kent and Shag Cove House.[6]

This sentence is technically incorrect, not matter if they are referenced or not

1) The British do not achieved air supremacy, (neither the Argentines of course): Plenty of sources: but to mention some e.g. Argentine strike planes were able to attack as they wish, transports planes go in and out, etc . 2) yes some helicopters were destroyed, but they were still plenty of them around from both EA and FAA. in fact the British flew some of them after jun14.

Not only Port Howard have not a good logistical support, the same could be say to units close to Stanley, It was more a organisation problem than of resources--Jor70 (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.The Air supremacy versus Air superiority argument rages on even British circles, I've seen discussed in books and even documentaries. I suggest in the interest of NPOV, we avoid using either term and find a more relevant substitute, it is a NATO term anyway.

2. The sentence does not claim all ARG helicopter were destroyed. However the ref doesn't claim that the helicopter that were destroyed were intended for use by 601. Better source or rewording is needed. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend looking for a source in Hugh Bicheno's book (I can't find my copy). I can't find any mention of the incident in Jerry Pook's book neither. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

starvation bit?

Can't see the relevence of the starvation bit. I would be inclined to remove it.

IceDragon64 (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DagosNavy: may care to comment as he substantially expanded the article. I have no strong opinion either way but it does offer a comment on the isolated position the garrison found itself in. W C M_email 08:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, as WCM mentions, it is just a comment made by the cited author to stress the isolation of the Argentine troops in Port Howard. If IceDragon64 finds it off-topic, I have no problem to see the statement removed.--Darius (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]