Talk:ARA San Juan (S-42)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARA San Juan (S-42). 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/20081020103539/http://www.ara.mil.ar:80/pnav_submarinos.asp to http://www.ara.mil.ar/pnav_submarinos.asp#02a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 08:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Map

Could anyone with knowledge of how to edit maps edit the current map to include the original path of the vessel, the search area, where it lost contact, etc? This information is available throughout the sources, though I think the search area has grown in recent days. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the contact lost has already been done. Thanks! SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Contact lost" seems to imply that the sub was in continuous contact until contact was suddenly lost at a certain point. Is that what happened? Or does the sub routinely check in only once every day or two? In the latter case it might be more accurate to say "this is where the sub was at last contact". The distinction matters because in the first case we would suppose some accident happened at the "Contact lost" location, while in the second case the accident could have happened anywhere between there and the next expected contact point. This in turn would affect the likely search area. Anyone with encyclopedic quality facts to make the update? 72.208.150.248 (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

[1] - this article gives coordinates for where the explosion was detected. I'll try and add them in myself if I can work out the map template. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I got this for the map, but it doesn't seem right to me. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Ushuaia

Contact lost

Mar del Plata

Explosion detected

class=notpageimage|

A map showing the locations of Ushuaia, Mar de Plata, and where communication was lost.

From what I'm seeing on maps from numerous articles, the explosion coordinates seem to be correct, but the position of last communication seems to be wrong. Need to track down the coordinates for that. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that is only the center of probability area for that acoustic noise and it extends very far, also to the communication lost point shown on map. This search would be an effort almost comparable to that of MH370. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.96.45 (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Article incorrectly renamed

Dear all, apart from this sub there were at least 3 other Argentine Navy ships with the same name; that's why the article name included pennant number. What is the simplest way to move it back to the correct name? The "plain" name should be a ship disambiguation page. Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can give us references to published reliable sources referring to these 3 preceding ships of that name? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jane's is one in English, Conway is another. The books by Arguindeguy are a reliable source in Spanish. Online you have several pages (including Argentine Navy ships lists) related to ships with this name in the Website "Histarmar". DPdH (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that one is listed at Buenos Aires-class destroyer, so I have moved the article back to the previous name with the pennant number, left the redirect in place as this is clearly the primary subject, and added a hatnote. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I've been researching the similarly named ships in the last few months preparing wikiarticle(s). Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Referencing

Generally, referencing is good insofar as material is cited. However, there are plenty of bare urls which need to be correctly cited using {{cite web}} or {{cite tweet}} as appropriate. Foreign language sources need to use the |trans-title= parameter and carry a translation of the article title. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Time to create a separate article?

Something like "Disappearance of the ARA San Juan" in order to move that information over as per WP:WHENSPLIT, obviously renaming the article once the submarine is found and its fate determined. Given that the pace of new information has slowed, now seems like a pretty good time to do so. This would also make it easier to add other information, such as the government's criticism of the Navy in new subsections, which would be too much for the current article. Maybe we should have a brief discussion on the naming of the new article before moving anything. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't believe that a spinout is necessary, as 1. it's (unfortunately) the primary highlight of the sub's career and (thusly) removing it would leave the ship article as virtually a stub, and 2. the precedent of USS Scorpion (SSN-589) and USS Thresher (SSN-593) demonstrates we generally don't do that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• I have been looking at the Thresher and Scorpion articles also in the past days, and would agree with The Bushranger's rationale here. Also the sad but true point that the tragedy was the most notable incident in the boat's long but uneventful career would leave the vessel's article as effectively a stub. Irondome (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that before the boat's disappearence, the article was already assessed as "start"; even with an "uneventful career" could gave been brought at least to "C" class with little effort. The disappearence is notable enough to merit its own article, sometihing I was to suggest once more information about inquiries is available. Regards, DPdH (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• I completely understand where you're both coming from and agree that it would leave a stub for the ARA San Juan article, but I'm looking at this more from the point of view of providing more information on things relating to the disappearance. There's a lot of debate and politics surrounding this issue, which would be notable to include, such as criticism of Argentina's low military spending in recent years (sometimes less than 0.8% of GDP, the lowest in the continent) or opposing views that having a submarine fleet is a leftover from a dictatorial and militaristic era. There's inquiries going on into the Navy and whether there was negligence, the head of the Navy may be replaced soon - all these things would warrant their own sections, not to mention things like reactions from other world leaders. Including this information, and as more information starts to come out, the structure of this article will make less and less sense, with subsections not relating to the ARA San Juan itself, but its disappearance and the ramifications of that. There's plenty of information I myself would have liked to include in recent days, but have left out since I wouldn't know how to include it in the current structure of the article. That's my view, but obviously happy to leave things as they are if there's no consensus. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• SegataSanshiro1,I completely concur with all the highly valid points you make, and the mass of material regarding the loss, which would make the ARA San Juan article itself completely disarrayed. I would suggest that the Argentine Submarine Force article would be a suitable place. We could add an entire and detailed new section to it, '2017 Loss of the ARA San Juan' which would be a very appropriate and logical fit. Irondome (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• That makes sense. Also the Argentine Navy article when concerning broader inquiries into the Navy itself, with sections on those articles titled "Effects of the loss of the ARA San Juan" or something similar, and a concise "Political and public reaction" type section on this article, linking to the sections on those two articles. I'll get working on that over the next few days. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

For any Spanish speakers willing to help with this, there's a lot of useful information and statistics on some of the things I mentioned in this [2] article. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I know just the man. Hey, DagosNavy how you doing? Would you want to advise on what path should be taken? My deep condolences to all our Argentinian colleagues on this tragedy, especially those with a naval connection who may even know some of the crew. Irondome (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Irondome, thanks for your kind words. I was born and raised in Mar del Plata, home base for the Argentine Submarine Force, so I take ARA San Juan tragedy somewhat personally, like many people here. I agree that the best place to move the bulk of information mentioned by SegataSanshiro1 is the Argentine Submarine Force article, plus an appropriate section in the Argentine Navy page.

I think, however, that things are still pretty "green" regarding some issues like political consequences, cause of loss, budget restraints, corruption in the upgrading process, etc. There is a lot of speculation and confusion here in the media. The inquiry reported by La Nacion newspaper is based, according to the article, on "classified" documents, which compromises their reliability. IMHO, we should wait until the search and rescue operation is over before making any move. Darius (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think factual information can be distinguished from speculation and the opinions of windbags like Elisa Carrio and others using the situation for political point scoring, and there's also notable opinions like this [3] from the ex commander of the San Juan. I completely see your point though, and for this reason I've been extremely careful to exclude conjecture, avoiding some very dubious claims from the Argentine press and British tabloids alike (The Express and Daily Fail in particular had some typically irresponsible reporting) when editing the article. If you want to ping me when you think it would be appropriate to add information to other articles, I would be more than happy to work with you. Perhaps in the meantime, we could start gathering a few sources. Thanks Irondome for your words and for all the edits from contributors working in the same spirit of cooperation as the search and rescue team. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The same "mass of material" related to the disappearence, search and rescue, and aftermath events would disarray any existing article. Strongly suggest that a spinoff article about the incident itself is created when the time is right, and linked from this article, the "Argentine Submarine Force" article, and any other relevant one. That would allow for more cohesive and coherent reading about this quite notable event, as already happened in the Spanish Wikipedia. Regards, DPdH (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi all, just noticed a spin-off article has been created with the same text from the section in this one. I've made some improvements to that new article, and keep working on it. The author of this spin-off has not yet summarized text here and removed the duplicated detail; if this is not done today I'll do that tomorrow to prevent inconsistencies. Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Today I removed some material that seems redundant and too detailed for this article, given that the spin-off article deals with this event and aftermath in detail. From now on please do not update in detail the submarine's article with the search efforts and other factors derived from the disappearence; that info should go to the article dealing with the event. Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed a bit more material that seemed too detailed for this article. If I have some time and somebody doesn't beat me to it, I'll try and edit and condense so it gives a good overview.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that's about as much as I can do to get the disappearance section in line with WP's summary style guidelines. I also removed the map for now, since myself and another editor on the other page have pointed out that it's inaccurate and I find it was taking up too much space now the section is shorter. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry just saw this, you did a great job summarizing. I restored the map as is a very useful visual aid. If inaccurate (what exactly?) is just a matter of fixing what's wrong; it cites a source anyway. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I wrote about it in a section above, on this talk page. I was trying to add information about where the explosion was detected, and it turns out it was a lot further east than this supposed location. More recent maps on news media give the location of the submarine a lot further east as well, right on the edge of the continental shelf, and that's where the current search area is. Yes, it's just a matter of fixing it and I agree that it's a useful visual aid - it's just off by a few hundred km at the moment. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Original article assessment

Hi Wikipedians, just reassessed the article in its pre-disappearence state against "B-class" criteria, and merits "C". Amended assessment for related Wikiprojects as a result. With little more effort on a couple sections could have been brought to "B". Regards, DPdH (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated to disappearance of flight MH307

Hi Wikipedians, need hephelp with this. An editor keeps reintroducing a link to the article about the disappearance of flight MH370 although is totally unrelated to the submarine San Juan. What can be done to resolve this? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Crew size

Only this English article about the San Juan lists a complement of 37. Everywhere else either 29 or 26 + 6 free bunks are stated - with source, for example in the German articles about the San Juan or the TR1700-class.

Is there any credible source for the 37 listed here? 2A02:908:389:96A0:343E:79EE:894E:AE6C (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A longstanding article from the BBC here [[4]] gives the crew number at 44, with names, and as far as possible photographs of the lost. Simon Adler (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Reports of Implosion at 388 meters

I didn't see any mention of reports of the boat imploding at 388 meters, via the International Business Times and others. The original source appears to be a US Naval Intelligence accustic analyst.

https://www.ibtimes.com/missing-argentine-submarine-latest-explosion-killed-ara-san-juan-crew-report-claims-2640838 Dude6935 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems that Ocean infinity has ended search with nothing found. Given the area searched within last year by everybody and technology involved like never before in history - the sub has vanished without a trace. Without a trace. Turned into dust by explosion with small parts floating far away as only explanation. In similar incident, Minerve was also never found and it was just off coast of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.15.115 (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Seabed constructor with rov on board is heading towards some kind of debries field 60m in length and 800m deep discovered by sonar and should be there tomorrow. Was that sonar image from Ocean infinity dataset from last few weeks or USN acoustic data from hydrophones led to this discovery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.48.221 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Search map (second image) at http://www.ara.mil.ar/submarino/sanjuan/partedeprensa132.html indicates green ellipse from hydrophone data a year ago and blue stripes represent search in narrow risges and slopes by uav, so we could say that hydrophone data more or less led to discovery and ridges and slopes could be checked only by high-tech uav like from ocean infinity that operate at angles. I wonder if that could be used for Minerve, Waratah or other lost wrecks (if in ridges). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.48.221 (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop spreading Ocean Infinite's lies

They haven't found anything yet. https://twitter.com/Enchev_EG/status/1063800332512362496?s=19 90.154.141.191 (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The tweet says "You do not must to have a lot of brain to see that this object(erosion soft rock) is right on the ridge line, parallel to it. Same pattern as the rock on the adjacent ridge." But the rest of the tweets are in Spanish? Perhaps you could explain what the problem is? Are these mages in the public domain? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If these images are in the public domain, it seems likely they would have received a very high level of scrutiny from many experts, not just from one anonymous Twitter user. The article says: "Ocean Infinity will receive a reward of $7.5 million for finding the missing vessel so I would have thought whoever is paying that huge sum would want to be reasonably sure of the veracity of the discovery. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

So, what is the situation right now? Have the debries been checked by rov with camera to confirm identification or not? Spokespeople from Armada Argentina are giving interviews as if that is confirmed wreck. It was all over news today. But still no news from ocean infinity website and no pictures of possible hull from rov camera as we saw of Scorpion or Thresher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.48.221 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ocean Infinity ceo says that uavs have HD cameras and have confirmed wreck, so that is it. Waiting for pictures now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.48.221 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

confused on locations

The article says "San Juan was found, a year and two days after the submarine went missing, 900 metres (2,950 ft) below the ocean's surface and about 250 nautical miles (460 km; 290 mi) southeast of Comodoro Rivadavia. A "hydro-acoustic anomaly" consistent with an implosion had been detected 30 nautical miles (56 km; 35 mi) north of the sub's last-known position at 10:31 (13:31 UT) on 15 November 2017." That implies the last known position is a bit further south than "southeast", but the red dot in the article is due east of Comodoro Rivadavia. If anyone sees actual coordinates, please add. Some readers will naturally be curious how the location compares to the Falkland islands and the large amount of territorial waters recently said by the UN to be Argentine territory [5]. Wnt (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Location of last contact has always been iffy in the article, and so the discovered location. Hardly any RS agree, so have for starters aligned the text with the existing sources. It may not be right, but of course changes can be made with proper new references. In particular I don't know where "250nm SE of Comodoro Rivadavia" came from. And then there is the map which has a spot for the last communication which is way too close to the coast - they have been entered as 46°00′44″S 63°40′36″W, but I cannot find any RS for this at all - the BBC map here implies that position, but gives no coordinates as well as contradicting its own text "430km (270 miles)" off the coast (and the BBC now use a modified one which looks more realistic).Davidships (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

On further thought, now that San Juan has been found very close (in terms of the scale of the map) to the point of last contact, we can dispense with the erroneous red dot - I'll do that, as well as add Comodoro Rivadavia, which is often mentioned in the article here and the related Disappearance of ARA San Juan. Davidships (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

If one finds the submarine, one would find the crew.

> "Navy declared the rescue part of the operation to be over, turning its attention to finding the submarine and not her crew."

This must be a mistranslation. It should probably be something like this.

> "When the submarine will be found, rather than try to rescue the crew alive, the navy will recover the submarine in a matter mining damage in the hope that the submarine should reenter service after repair. The bodies of the crew will be removed once the submarine is safe and secure."

Given how long that is, I see why a lazy translator would shorten it, but it is so short as to be nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C000:1E2A:9491:79A1:60B0:13DD (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean minimizing above. But this kind of comment is very common in news coverage of disasters -- when the operation turns into a "recovery" rather than a "rescue". The objective at that point is usually to find and account for bodies and investigate the cause; I would be very skeptical of your suggestion that a broken submarine would be refurbished for use after suffering catastrophic damage. Who on Earth would let that hatch close behind them on the way down?! Wnt (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The words "and not her crew" are not in the source, and it contains nothing at all like the IP says it should. Davidships (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018

I suggest that the nationality of the vessel Seabed Constructor is changed from American to Norwegian (as supported by the link itself). Marconi no (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The vessel's nationality was not given in the source, so I removed the American and rewrote the sentence. Llammakey (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Llammakey's response. Izno (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

"Norwegian" added with ref. Davidships (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

But Ocean Infinity is US, and without saying that in the article, the reader might get confused. So we can add "American" to Ocean infinity" or remove both "nationalities" (both can be found in the respective articles). WikiHannibal (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)