Talk:Argentine Navy

Uniforms and grooming standards

The info was out of date. Beards now authorized from Ensign and upwards. See section 1.10 of the latest Navy Uniform Regs (R.A-1-001). Goatees are authorized as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.160.225 (talk • contribs).

Naval Aviation

<quote>The COAN (Spanish: Comando de Aviación Naval) and not CANA as is commonly wrong shortened by some foreign bibliography, has 4 main airbases:<quote>

The phrasing of this sentencer really bothers me. Does anyone else feel that it looks a little POV? // 3R1C 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pls feel free to correct the style but should be noted that the acronym is COAN and not CANA as several bibliografy shows --Jor70 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

See my comment on FLOMAR below... Jor70 is right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.160.225 (talk • contribs).

Falklands/Malvinas

Its not true that Argentinians say Malvinas War, they say Guerra de las Malvinas as they speak Spanish. This is an English wikipedia and we are thus duty bound to use the common English term and not reveal a pro Argentine POV re The Falklands War, SqueakBox 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know English speaking people say either Falklands War or Malvinas War and Spanish speaking people say Guerra de las Malvinas--Vintagekits 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not true, English speakers say Falklands, a minority of POV pushing abnti Brits say Malvinas but nobody else does, SqueakBox 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And a large part of the planet (not all ant brits) called them Malvinas --Jor70 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not true, English speakers say Falklands, a minority of POV pushing abnti Brits say Malvinas but nobody else does, SqueakBox 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Squ , this is already too boring, yes this is english wikipedia about for the english language not in favour of England point of view. Others english speakers also used Malvinas. --Jor70 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Only a tiny miniority do, not enough to warrant inclusion here or elsewhere. Please revert yourself or you are likely to be blocked for blatant violation of 3RR. What we cant have, even for an article on the Argentine Navy, is an anti Brit POV, that violates our NPOV policy. Can you provide a substantial source to back your claims, SqueakBox 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is almost laughably POV - many people used the term (including the Irish Government) - mostly outside of Britain - why is there opinion POV and yours NPOV. I agree that Falklands is the more common term used but you want ot completely ignore and whitewash the alternative term which has widespread use and is the official name in other English speaking countries!--Vintagekits 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No I dont, I actually added Malvinas to the main body of the paragraph, IMO quite enough given notability in this case, SqueakBox 01:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody provides any evidence here but just says things like "many people used the term". English langauge google gets 35,300 for "Malvinas War" and 511,000 for "Falkalnds War". Clearly the latter is the most common, and should be used in the English language version of Wikipedia as the default. However, given the context of an article on the Argentine Navy, however, I feel that the "Falkalnds/Malvinas War" title part is acceptable, given that "Falklands" is the default term (given precedence over 'Malvinas') used elsewhere in the article. Logoistic 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

here you have some, all british sites found by user Vintagekits

• The Falklands/Malvinas War
• The Malvinas War Revisited
• Warrior Nation - Images of War in British Popular Culture 1850-2000
• 'With the Gurkhas in the Falklands' - A War Journal's Postscript
• Justice and the Genesis of War
• The Falklands: 20 years on Jor70 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Having inserted Malvinas as a translation into the section my objections are with (a) using the term Falklands/Malvinas as a section title and (b) object to including the term Malvinas in this way, and I would argue that doing so gives the article less credibility in the English speaking world, something I am sure Jor would not wish to see. For instance at Battle of the Bulge we translate this term into German but we dont vcall it the Unternehmen War (apologies if my German is incorrect), SqueakBox 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the word you wanted was 'untermenchen' but whatever the German codeword was for the followup to 'operation Market Garden' it was unlikely to be that, and you are close to falling foul of Godwins law :) --Gibnews

I protected the page because of rapid-fire reverts from anons. I will unprotect it now.--CSTAR 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An opinion

This is a dispute which we have managed to resolve in other places; Sadly there are those with an anti-British agenda who support the Argentine naming of a British territory for their cause. This promotes discord between the British and Argentine contributors, and should be avoided.

I think its fair enough to refer to the war by the Spanish name, because thats what it was called, and they were clearly the other party involved - however the correct name in English is the Falklands war. At the time here we got to see both sides of the dispute, with the BBC covering the British position and TVE wildly enthusiastic about the invasion.

What is not appropriate is the renaming of the territory, or the use of alternative names for Stanley. There are many territories in the world which have changed hands, and one has to respect the views of the inhabitants.

The Argentines fought la Guerra de las Malvinas, and that should be mentioned, but winners of disputes earn the right to name territories. The object of Wikipedia is to inform people correctly rather than to wage further wars.

--Gibnews 08:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• "but winners of disputes earn the right to name territories" - this basically sums up the POV that is riddled throught out wiki articles on this issue!--Vintagekits 11:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Its an observation of reality confirmed by Charles Darwin. You may be able to dredge up English language websites which refer to the Malvinas, but their authors likely lack a NPOV. I asked someone from the Falklands 'where the Malvinas was' and got a similar look to shouting Rangers in the Celtic stands.

None of that affects the fact that the Argentines fought a war bravely and as best they were able, then wisely surrendered to prevent further needless loss of life; that is what historical articles should accurately record. The inhabitants of the Falklands have the right to self-determination and to call their territory whatever they like.

--Gibnews 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What has that got to do with many English speaking people refering to the islands as the Malvinas? "You may be able to dredge up English language websites which refer to the Malvinas" - dredge up - 30,000 ghits, the Irish Government and the Irish national broadcaster is now dredging up!!--Vintagekits 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? Googling RTE's site comes up with 12 hits for "Malvinas" only one of which does not include "Falklands" or "Falkland Islands" as well, and seven are just location drop-down option in search pages. Conversely, "Falklands" or "Falkland Islands" comes up with 28 hits, only two (apart from the seven location drop-downs again) of which include "Malvinas" as well.

Likewise, "Falklands" or "Falkland Islands" result in 28 hits on .gov.ie sites, while "Malvina" appears only once, and that in a Seanad debate in which "Falklands" was also used. Nick Cooper 18:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Google gives 22,000,000 for bombay, 1,500,000 for elvis lives, and 3,540,000 for gibralter - none of which proves anything. Using 'The Socialist Party' as a reference is similar to citing This. --Gibnews 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• "What is not appropriate is the renaming of the territory, or the use of alternative names for Stanley" - IMHO this statement is not entirely correct, as in official argentinian documentation (including cartography by the IGM) the Falklands/Malvinas capital name is (still) shown as "Puerto Argentino". So to be fair, both names should be used to refer to the city (even though the english one might have priority in the english languaje WikiPedia). This is an issue that maybe legal or diplomatic experts could help resolve (eg: how are the islands and its towns/villages, etc referred by the UN?).
  I agree with the intention of discouraging conflicts between editors, I also support accuracy and neutral point of view. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that while I like the UN, in these matters I don't think it can be considered the neutral overseer it usually is, as its stated mission is to, as it sees it, de-colonise everything, and damn the views of the people that live there or the consequences of doing so. A vestige of the US view from earlier in the last century Narson (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

FLOMAR

I've read another acronym: FLOta de Mar ARgentina — FLOMAR here -> [1]. Should it replace COFM? Necessary Evil 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know where it come out that COFM, FLOMAR is a very common term not only in ARA but among south american navies Jor70 19:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look the official Argentinian Navy website (http://www.ara.mil.ar/comandos.asp) you can see that the ARA "cutting edge" is subdivided in four "Commandos Operativos" (Operational Commands): "Flota de Mar" (Sea Fleet), "Fuerza de Submarinos" (Submarine Force), "Aviacion Naval" (Naval Aviation) and "Infanteria de Marina" (Marine Infantry). So my guess is that in the acronyms, the letters "CO" come from the initials from of "Comando Operativo" and the other 2 letters, from those of the name of the respective command (eg: "AN" from "Aviacion Naval") and not from the word "COmando". I couldn't find the acronyms in the website, so my comment is an "educated guess" (IMHO). Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

---

FLOMAR was old STANAG, now the current acronyms must be four letters long (FLA¡s). All major commands should start with "CO" as well (COIM, COFM, COAN, COFS, COAL) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.160.225 (talk • contribs)

Name

Wouldn't it be Navy of the Argentine Republic as the preferred translation into English? I notice it was moved without discussion in July Narson 21:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone ahead and moved it as no-one seemed to object and the old name was a pretty unusual translation (Seemed to be some attempt at a compromise between the spanish and the English name) Narson (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the name of the article has been reverted (via redirection) to "Argentine Navy". Even though is not a literal translation from spanish (as the previous attempts seem to be), I believe that it is a quite adequate one and is similar to the english translation for the 2 other major branches of the Argentinian Armed Forces (Army and Air Force). Maybe further research can clarify this issue, but IMHO the translation should be left as is now unless there is docummented evidence that this name is wrong. If still in doubt, maybe a discussion prior to renaming (again!) the article could be helpful. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC).

Could someone provide the evidence to show when the Argentine Navy came into being. I ask this because the Republic of Argentina did not come into being until 1853, although there was a short period of Argentine Confederation. In the absence of evidence that it was actually called the Argentine Navy at its inception, it would properly be the navy of the United Provinces of South America.

86.16.134.133 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Their history trace back to the 1810 May Revolution with their first combat to be 2 march 1811 (see official site). Regarding the name see Name of Argentina --Jor70 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask about "their" history. I asked about the origin of the naming. I find it hard to believe that the United Provinces of South America would decide to call its navy something other than the name of the country. It would be like the Virgina Navy calling itself the United States Navy years before the United States came into being. Surely we strive for accuracy. So I ask again: where is the evidence that it was called the Argentine Navy before 1853?

Agent0060 14:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

First please calm down and second I already referred you to the origin of the Name Argentina what obviously is applied to all argentine things, read the article, what do you want ? a tape recorder interview of Guillermo Brown ? --Jor70 (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am quite calm, thank you. So far. I think it quite obvious that the name "Argentine Navy" cannot properly be used for any date prior to 1836 or, at best, 1826. So, before we attribute the name to the organisation for any time prior to those dates, we should have a verifiable source. Agent0060 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

It's polítical SandmanNet (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LNMAB.jpg

Image:LNMAB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ARA Day

Hi All, can't believe that no one yet mentioned the Argentine Navy day, which is celebrated on May 17th, anniversary of the victory achieved in 1814 in the Battle of Montevideo. I've added the corresponding paragraph and supporting reference ("History" page in the ARA official website, in spanish).
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few pics - proposal

Hi all, this article now includes several pictures and visually looks "wrong" to me (leaving lots of "empty" spaces in the text). I propose to leave a few pics embedded in the text where appropriate, and move the rest to a new "Gallery" section (as seen in other wikiarticles). If there is no reasonable opposition will do this "ASAIC" (ie: "as soon as I can" 8D).
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New layout for the "Fleet" section - Why?

Hi, I've noticed that the fleet is currelntly shown in a more complex and less clear way (IMHO) than what used to be (up to Revision as of 2010-05-07T14:09:45). Can anyone please justify why the former layout was discarded? Otherwise I'll reformat the section following the previous layout and structure (but maybe keeping some features of the new layout).
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Almirante Brown class

The edit of 11:49, 10 August 2011 has in the edit summary: "use of the term destroyer is akin to the french use of the word frigate....should be noted these are infact NOT destroyers".

Please can we discuss this. Why do you think that the Almirante Brown class are not destroyers?--Toddy1 (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Giving the Almirante Brown class the designation of a Destroyer is officially right but factually and technically wrong. At 3,300 tons (Less than the La Fayette class frigate) they are more in line with contemporary ww2 destroyers (Weapon class destroyer) rather than modern day destroyers exceeding 7,000 tons. In terms of armament the Almirante Brown class do not compare well with modern day frigates, let alone Destroyers. I feel it is just a case of the Argentine officials classing them as destroyers - maybe for the opposite reason many European navies use the term Frigate over Destroyer.

I think it best, while keeping the title Almirante Brown class destroyer, it should fall under Frigates heading in role/class etc. Recon.Army (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Also its worth to note that the articles of those European navies, while keeping inline with official designations of Frigates for destroyer type escorts it is clearly put to the reader that they are Destroyers in size and armaments, save for name. I think this best describes what I am trying to achieve here. Recon.Army (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that destroyers are larger than frigates. That is not necessarily the case.

• The British Type 42 destroyers built in the 1970s and 80s at full load displaced 4100 tons (Batches 1 and 2) and 4675 tons (Batch 3).
• The British Type 22 frigates built in the 1970s and 80s at full load displaced 4400 tons (Batch 1), 4800 tons (Batch 2) and 4900 tons (Batch 3).

Though if you look at Argentine escorts built in the 80s:

• Argentine MEKO 360 class ships rated as destroyers displaced 3360 tons at full load.
• Argentine MEKO 140 class ships rated by Argentina as corvettes and by Jane's as frigates displaced 1790 tons at full load.

In terms of role, modern destroyers tend to have air defence as their primary mission, whilst modern frigates tend to have anti-submarine warfare as their primary mission; though there are exceptions to this. British and Argentine Type 42s are/were primarily air defence; the Argentine MEKO 360 class ships have weaker air defence capabilities than Type 42s, but a stronger anti-surface capability.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally a Destroyer is larger than a Frigate.

Regarding the Type 42s and Type 22s, the comparison doesn't fit with the Almirante Brown class. Its a case where the MEKO 360s armaments and tons are just far too inferior compared to a modern day Destroyer and in allot of cases modern day Frigates. The Type 42s sea dart is also used as an anti-ship missile (Though primarily an anti-air missile), so to conclude MEKO 360 is superior in that area is highly questionable. The Type 42s also had significant anti-submarine capabilities.

Lets not also forget the Type 42s were an cheap economic gap fill after the Type 82s were cancelled. Therefore designed to be as effective and as cheap as possible. The Type 22s were newer vessels intended to complement destroyers and had the luxury of a higher budget per hull. If things had gone as planned the 7,000 ton Type 82s would have been the back-bone of the RNs destroyer fleet. (Only 1 was built, HMS Bristol).

I don't really want to get into a discussion about the Royal Navy, plus its designation of anti-air vessels as destroyers and anti-submarine vessels as frigates isn't the norm. The USNavy destroyers are actually multirole vessels with emphasis on anti-air, cruisers tend to be more dedicated anti-air vessels. The French navy while classing all escorts as Frigates, puts all its large anti-air and anti-submarine vessels in the destroyer basket.

A Type 23 Frigate at 4,900 tons is superior in every way to the MEKO. Recon.Army (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has deviated too much and surprisingly so soon. So, in an effort to dive back-into a more constructive discussion; I have a question/s;

We both agree (I presume) that the Almirante Brown class are in-fact designated Destroyers by the Argentine officials - and I think that the MEKO 360 should continue to be referred to as the Almirante Brown class destroyer - but, in terms of armaments, systems, role and tons are they really destroyers? Shouldn't this be made clear to the reader in the relevant articles? This course of action has been taken on the relatively well written European navies, so shouldn't we do the same here? Recon.Army (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They are designated destroyers by the Argentine Navy; Jane's considers them destroyers. Do you have any reliable sources that say that they are not destroyers?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Various naval forces designate a class to a warship for many reasons; For example many European nations conclude the name destroyer is too aggressive and will designate destroyer type vessels as Frigates. A simple bit of research can reveal NATOs own designations to warships around the world, based on capability, not politics. Although political designations are used for reference purposes.

Im not saying the Almirante Brown class should be stricken from the destroyer list, they are destroyers after-all, but it should be mentioned in their relevant articles that they fill the role in terms of capability, tons, armaments etc as a modern frigate. (Even then only poorly by comparison IMHO). Again, if other better written articles take this course of action, shouldn't we do the same? So far you have not been addressing the point of this discussion and appear to not be understanding my proposal by taking it the wrong way. Recon.Army (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources, not editors' opinions. Just because there are faults in other articles does not justify reproducing those faults - see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Faa.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Faa.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Faa.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Argentine Navy. 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/20110716035228/http://www.segurancaedefesa.com/Foudre2ARA.html to http://www.segurancaedefesa.com/Foudre2ARA.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100307170103/http://www.mindef.gov.ar/info.asp?Id=1373 to http://www.mindef.gov.ar/info.asp?Id=1373
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312065320/http://www.gacetamarinera.com.ar/nota.asp?idNota=2432&idSec=7 to http://www.gacetamarinera.com.ar/nota.asp?idNota=2432&idSec=7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325090856/http://www.bravozulu.com.ar/programas.php to http://www.bravozulu.com.ar/programas.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.saorbats.com.ar/ORBAT%20-%20Argentina%20-%20ARA.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Not true

Not accurate trial sentence, just a amarillist's post's SandmanNet (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)