Talk:Blowpipe (missile)

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 met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Medals

Hi to whom it may concern I served with 119 AD battery in Chatham NB in the early 90s and we had an exercise in Wainwright AB and I was one of the lucky o WA to get to fire the blowpipe and I ended up having two hits that week and received 2 medals from shorts and my question is I now believe g to the veterans NATO/UN club and wanted to get a cloth badge of the medals I've won thought shorts please let me k of what we cab do thank you for your valuable to time my name is Joseph Claude Alex Alain garneau Jcaagarneau (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blowpipe (missile). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False Claims of 9 Argentine Aircraft shot down…

& Recent Revert despite what the Article says in the Header

It had its first use during active combat in 1982's Falkland Islands War when it was used by both sides of the conflict. It demonstrated truly terrible performance, with only two confirmed kills for about 200 launches.

We does this article need to prove a negative, the only proof is that fact that one aircraft is confirmed destroyed. Are you seriously suggesting that Argentina had 8 aircraft unregistered & all of them fell to a missile that failed 50% of the time & was derided as useless as per the article. I'll rewrite later & suggest if you choose to disagree you Need to Prove the unregistered claims, rather than asking for proof of the actual. All other "claims" are combination kills & were out of Blowpipe Range.a59] - Aermacchi MB-339A of CANA 1 Esc shot down at Goose Green by Blowpipe SAM fired by Royal Marine Air Defence Troop (5.00 pm). Lt Miguel killed.

Use the talk page to make your case for removal, and get a consensus

The article's lede paragraphs are not a WP:Reliable Source - they should be based on what is in the body of the article which in turn should reflect what is said in reliable sources. The figure of 9 appears to be what was claimed at the time for Blowpipe kills in the British Government While Paper "The Falklands Campaign: The Lessons" (CMND 8758) as reported in Ethell and Price's Air War South Atlantic - perhaps the article needs to differentiate between initial claims and later analysis.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

while I agree that's a fair comment I'd hardly consider Ethell and Price's Air War South Atlantic a Encyclopaedic reference.

It meets the requirements of WP:RS more than naval.history.net and is probably at least as good as most of the other references used in the article - while it may be old, it should still be appropriate for stating what the White Paper says, and it is fine for what it currently used for (i.e. that a harrier pilot thought he had been shot down by AAA rather than a missile.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military Today

This article quotes extensively from this article written by the anonymous writer "blacktail". This seems to be raising a lot of red flags; anonymous author, unverifiable expertise. On the face of it, precisely the type of source we shouldn't be using. Raised at WP:RSN WP:RSN#Military Today. W C M_email 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it as a source, RSN indicated it wasn't reliable. W C M_email 13:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]