Talk:Operation Tabarin

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Tabarin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

British Overseas Territories Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Antarctica High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica 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.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War II

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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Reason for Tarbarin[edit]

It is my understanding that the primary reasons for Tarbarin was to stop the German fleet using the Sub Antarctic and Antarctic Island (Northern Most) as a base for Oiling their ships.

The Falklands was already heavily defended, but information was needed on possible ship movements.

See Sir Vivian Fuchs book Of Ice and Men. He was FIDS then BAS director for many years.

HMS Bransfield[edit]

@Lyndaship: Haddelsey states that Veslekari was renamed HMS Bransfield. Do you have another source? I doubt there will be enough information for a separate article. Finavon (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I did wonder about that and was considering buying the book. I've checked in College - there is no HMS Bransfield and looked up VESLEKARI on Miramar - no record of ever having being renamed. Also looked here [1] - not mentioned. Highland Monarch was also never commissioned. I'm having big doubts about Haddelsey being a RS Lyndaship (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just found [2] which does claim she was HMS Bransfield however its either copied from our RRS Bransfield article or ours is a copyvio of it. Regardless I believe College and Miramar Lyndaship (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an excellent source on the re-naming of Veslekari as HMS Bransfield (Pearce, 2018) so I've changed the reference. Pearce's book refers to primary sources for the facts, held in British Antarctic Survey (BAS) Archives or UK National Archives. BAS later had a vessel, RRS Bransfield. Buckland1072 (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckland1072: Sorry but a self published book whose prime topic is postal history is neither a RS nor trumps such acknowledged RS as College or Miramar. Does Pearces sources include such things as Admiralty Red or Pink Lists, Naval List etc? Lyndaship (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndaship: OK, thanks for telling me - I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'll remove that reference. No his sources don't include those you listed but they are original administrative files created at the time of the expedition by the UK Admiralty/Colonial Office eg UK National Archives ref CO78/215/9 [3]. I didn't think conventions allowed me to reference original unpublished sources? Buckland1072 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After the original query, I contacted BAS Archives. Their team was (and probably continue) working from home with no access to physical records. He indicated that their records tend to pick up in the operational phase with little on the prior planning for the expedition. Those records are mainly held at The National Archives within the Colonial Office collection. He did quote Dudeney and Sheail's "Claiming the Ice" with information on the acquisition and commissioning of Veslekari and a Colonial Office reference (CO 78/217/13 88027/7). On balance he thinks she was commissioned, albeit for a brief time and is willing to look for evidence when back in the office.

Further confusing matters, Sir Vivian Fuchs' "Of Ice and Men" (ISBN 0904614069) states the Admiralty (Marr's employer) chartered a small square-rigged wooden sailing ship, Godthaab from the Norwegian government and renamed her HMS Bransfield for Operation Tabarin, with the same account that she was found unsuitable for the expedition after a loaded voyage from Tilbury to Portsmouth in November 1943. Fuchs includes a photograph of the ship from 1929. Similar story; different name! Finavon (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an error on Fuch's part, amongst the acknowledged errors in "Of Ice and Men" (ISBN 0904614069) - he identified the original expedition ship as Godthaab, not Veslekari as it's named in the expedition committee minutes (in BAS Archives and National Archives). Buckland1072 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your BAS man is confusing being commissioned for the operation and being commissioned as Royal Navy ship. It is of course possible that College is wrong and mirimar has incomplete info and it would be good to resolve one way or the other. Found this about the ship which you might find of interest [4] Lyndaship (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posssibly. The Polar Record article should be sufficiently reliable. The CO minute (cited above) proposes the name change, with the prefix "HMS". Buckland1072 has acknowledged the error in "Of Ice and Men". Finavon (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in revising this article[edit]

I'm interested in revising this article, having some knowledge of the Expedition. Does anyone want to collaborate? Buckland1072 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition of sources. Happy to help but have v. limited access to reliable sources. Finavon (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm looking into the etiquette of wanting to make quite extensive edits to an existing page. The article is missing quite a bit of information at the moment, especially about the 2nd year. If I draft something in Word 1st, in due course, perhaps you'd be willing to look over it? Buckland1072 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckland1072: WP:BOLD, WP:CITE, WP:Workpages. Did you recently send me a copy of one the CO minutes by email? Finavon (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not me. Buckland1072 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Finavon: You kindly offered to help revise some aspects of this article. Sorry I haven't followed up before, but I haven't done much over the summer except add images and replace the maps with more current ones. I'd now like to replace the existing lead section. I've drafted something in my sandbox and wondered if you would take a look please? User:Buckland1072/sandbox#Operation Tabarin lead I'd particularly value your opinion on citations - as all the facts are/will be referenced specifically in the body of the article I've just referenced 2 of the sources which support this overview level of information. Do you think that's enough?

The next thing I'm keen to do is to improve the list of expedition members. I was thinking of removing the list of names from its current position, and either a) adding a sub-section to the Expedition section for each year of the expedition and within those sub-sections list who was at each base. b) An alternative would be to have a separate section on Expedition members, with a bit more biographical info on each person, but personally I like to see who was where, especially as several of the men have their own Wikipedia articles anyway.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks Buckland1072 (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]