Talk:Operation EF (1941)

Correct use of refereces

The lead of this article contains the statement "It also showed how unreliable aircraft raids can be." The reference previously used for this statement does not say this. I have relocated the reference to the next occurrance of its use and replaced it here with a cite tag Please ensure in future that referenced statements are actually found in the nominated reference. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the "incorrect" reference. Sorry. I added the names of the carriers and put the ref at the end of the paragraph as have elsewhere been told to do - lots of people are good at telling others what to do. I thought putting it there meant part of what was in the paragraph was in the the ref. not necessarily everything. I will be more careful in the future. However I think one could easily argue that the story told in the ref. does support the claim. And at least I added a reference which seems to have been useful. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Most readers will interpret a ref at the end of a sentence as referrring to that sentence. No biggie. I used to place references at the end of the paragraph too, but I have come to realise as I said, that it tends to be seen as applying only to the last sentence of the paragraph, plus, in historical and scientific articles each main statement of fact needs to be backed up by its own reference to ensure verifiability. It is a bit of a pain referencing everything I know, but it helps to maintain the credibility of the encyclopedia.

As for the statement referred to in the section header, although one can arguably draw the conclusion you have from the information in the reference, the reference does not actually make that claim. Thus to include the claim based on the FAAA site, would actually be a form of synthesis which is not allowed. Since that is where it came from, I will remove the statement. If you find a reference that actually says that, then would be the time to re-insert it.

There is also a school of thought that the lead for an article should be a summary of information from later in the article and so it should not be separately referenced. All statements in the lead would thus be referenced in the body of the article.

Finally, I have re-read my first comment here and I realise that it may have come across as more critical than I intended. Please accept my apologies if I caused you any offence, none was intended. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries and best wishes - it is funny how one keeps coming across things like this article on wikipedia that one has not heard of. There was no mention of it on Victorious and Furious's page. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Another ref and Operation EF

This ref [[http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/allies/previews/tmc48045.htm modeling madness on the albacore says this op was called Operation "EF" and involved HMS Adventure to Archangel with mines, "while the air groups of HMS Furious and HMS Victorious struck Petsamo and Kirkenes respectively on July 30, 1941. These two ports were used by the Gebirgs Korps Norge, and it was believed German shipping would be present....." . This might be added if a nicer ref can found - or anyway. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Operation Crucifixion - wrong title; Not an FAA operation designation!

There was no FAA operation with the code name "Operation Crucifixion". This name seems to have originated with Ron Mackay, in Britain's Fleet Air Arm in World War Two on page 139 and was his rather lurid subtitle for his account of Operation EF, and was apparently chosen to summarize his analysis of the operation. Tovey's despatch, which is linked on the article page gives the official operation name, which was Operation EF. Mackay uses the word "crucifixion on page 105 to describe operations in Malta as well. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I think we'll have to change the name back to it's original title. As an aside, Mackay's account is quite flawed because it is clear from Tovey that the Fulmars that were to escort the Albacore strike against Kirkenes failed to rendezvous with the Albacores, who were left without fighter protection and the Fulmars fought their own entirely separate battle with the Luftwaffe.Damwiki1 (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That's where I took it from, would you rather have Operation EF (1941) or some such? I've been able to glean from divers sources but they are rather more contradictory than usual. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Operation EF is fine, IMHO. I'll try and locate some more sources, but it is a rather obscure action.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an e-mail address? Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have email enabled in my preferences, so you can email me via wikipedia.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)