A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 8, 2010, June 8, 2013, and June 8, 2022.

British Overseas Territories

	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 / South America

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

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	South American 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).

References

Many of the reference links on this article are broken - I've fixed one that had an obvious correct version, but several of the rest I couldn't easily repair. Could someone do so?

Also, Wikipedia is not a 'reliable source' in the sense that we can cite it (since anyone can add material to it), so I'm removing the cite to Falklands war. The statement sourced there doesn't seem to be cited in Falklands war or else I'd copy the reference across. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title neutrality

I question whether "Bluff Cove Disaster" is a neutral title for this - it was only a disaster for one side of the conflict, after all. If this is the standard name used to refer to the incident then it might be appropriate, but the lack of working references makes that hard to ascertain. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact was a great victory for the FAA. I hate to be the pesimist(?) but the Falklands War (which has a main pointing here) is much more complete than this article. Anyway, I can help with the A-4B and A-4C flights info if you like . --Jor70 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 alternatives: 1. Wikipedia normally has some sort of naming convention for these sort of articles e.g "action of June XX, 1982". 2. Find the most references with a commonly used term that's neutral. For my vote, neither "battle" nor "disaster" are correct. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with the consensus on the name but the name was the first I came up with after finding the article named the Battle of Buff Cove, which I had never seen until Olaf found a BBC reference. I've honestly never seen that before. I agree the article needs expanding. Also "victory"? Sucess yes but victory no. Not sure if this is a language barrier but we'd describe an air raid as successful but never a victory. Justin talk 09:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wasnt suggesting to use victory (nor even success) on the title just showing that disaster wasnt neutral. --Jor70 (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bluff Cove air attacks"? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, Ryan. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No more word on this, so I'm gonna move it. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title is still wrong because the attacks did not take place at Bluff Cove. Dmgerrard (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a reliable reference for the location of the attack. also, I'm pretty sure, even if they took place closer to Fitzroy than Bluff Cove, the WP:COMMONNAME would still be the "Bluff Cove air attacks". (Hohum ^@)

Hohum is correct, commonly known as Bluff Cove, I would suggest adding a note that they did not in fact take place in Bluff Cove. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps once we have consensus, we should drop the capitalisation of Air Attacks too. (Hohum ^@) 22:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of dead

The BBC claims that 48 people were killed, while the article says 49 and cites a documentary. Since the former is readily available to check and the latter isn't I'm inclined to change the number, but does anyone know of other sources which give 49? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three FAA pilots alto died: 1st Lt Danilo Bolzan, Lt Juan Arraras and Ensign Alfredo Vazquez. They were part of the last wave (four A-4C of Grupo 4 as Flight Mazo) which arrived after Grupo 5's A-4B succesfully attacked the LSLs. By the time Mazos arrived, 2 Sea Harriers were already on position. The remaining Mazo (1st Lt Sanchez) escape --Jor70 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten that, Flt Lt Morgan deals with that in his book. Justin talk 12:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More details?

Which of the landing ships was lost? And which frigate was damaged? 194.80.106.134 (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Sir Galahad was a total loss, RFA Sir Tristram was repaired, there were no other ship losses or damage; there were no other warships present. Justin talk 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result?

This battle took place 28 years ago, yet there is still no result on the infobox? As British losses outweigh those of the Argentinians, I would consider this a tactical victory for Argentina. Whatever the outcome of the attack, that infobox should contain a result. Wolcott (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki editors don't present their own conclusions, they use the conclusions of reliable sources. If you have a source which supports an outcome, please use it. (Hohum ^@) 09:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that would be WP:OR. I note the suggestion was discussed previously and rejected as inappropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book was written by an author regarding the attacks. I'm not sure if you would consider this original research but here goes: "The debacle delayed the attack on Stanley by 2 days, primarily so two 40 Commando companies could augment the Welsh Guards. But the battle did not affect the war’s outcome, and tragically, it might easily have been prevented." I'm also not sure if this is comparable to the Doolittle Raid, but if it does then perhaps we could use a result similar to theirs? Wolcott (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reponse please? Perhaps an Indecisive result? Wolcott (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cachon82.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cachon82.jpg, 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:Cachon82.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Thompson

Why I was reverted ????? IT IS NOT A DEAD LINK and yes it is a quote reference, look it for yourself. Since when It is wrong to use a telly interview as reference ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.43 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bolia opinions are based on what ? Didn't he realize yet that an LCU was blown up during this attack ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.43 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bluff Cove Air Attacks. 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/20120316102438/http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/NovDec04/bolia.pdf to http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/NovDec04/bolia.pdf

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) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page move: capitalization

Per the above discussion under "Title neutrality," I propose changing the page name to sentence case: Bluff Cove air attacks. This was proposed 9 years ago and no one objected; it seems no one got around to doing it. No one has claimed that "Bluff Cove Air Attacks" is a widely used name for the incident or battle so that it has become a proper name. From the discussion above, it seems clear that the people who originally came up with the page title did not think that it was a proper name; rather, they were just trying to come up with a description since there was no consensus in other sources regarding a formal name of the battle or incident. I'll leave this here for a few days and then boldly make the move. Holy (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Darius (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Speaking as someone who watched these ships being attacked from Mount Harriet and who had experienced being bombed in San Carlos, I cant ignore that this page does not even mention the advice from Ewen Southby-Tailyour to get off the ships as soon as possible. 220.244.104.97 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]