Talk:ARA San Luis (S-32)

Use of the foreign language word Malvinas

Astrotrain, please stop the sistematic removal of every single reference to the name Malvinas from every single article. In the context of a submarine of the Argentine fleat that participated of the Falkland war, it is imperative to have a reference to the Spanish word. A reader not completelly in the subject might ignore the Spanish name, what might prevent him from reaching more information say, while searching the internet. This is not an article about something that concerns only to the islands, but much more to Argentina, where Spanish is the official name, and where the islands are known as Malvinas. Thus, a simple reference of the Spanish name together with the English one is not only acceptable, but necesary. Mariano(t/c) 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and thus we use the English name- Falklands War. We don't for example use German in World War II articles. Astrotrain 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your do not answer to the motives I give to keep the Spanish name. Are you going to claim then that San Luis and Santa Fe should be also translated because it is in Spanish?? Please give solid reasons before changing the original version. Mariano(t/c) 15:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no offical English name for the ships- so of course not. However the Falklands War, while known as the Guerra de las Malvinas (or whatever) in Spanish, is known as the Falklands War in English, and by no other name. We do not put in Spanish translations for other English terms in the article I note. It doesn't matter what your motives are- it is clearly wrong. Astrotrain 15:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent for your edit. Mariano(t/c) 09:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

With good will any dispute can be solved. I fear you were each standing too close to the issue. It happens to us all. When there is a dispute such as this a decent and encyclopaedic compromise usually works :) Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The insistance on the use of the word Malvinas is in support a territorial claim, which is going nowhere. The term is certainly used in Argentina for and by countries which support illogical irredentism, like Spain - however its not a valid alternative name because the people of the Falkland islands reject its use totally. The use of foreign language names is always questionable, and in the case of 'Las Malvinas' offensive. I note a story about the Falkland Islands I wrote picked up by an Argentine newspaper simply replaced the name and did not give any alternative. And that was in their English edition. --Gibnews

Man, we've discussed this a thousand times. Malvinas is way older than the Falklands War, and has been used by countries supporting and not supporting the Argentine claim; it's just the Spanish name, derivated from the French one. As in any territory that has been occupied by other nations, former names or names in those other languages are to be provided. Mariano(t/c) 09:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, you would not dictate to the Chinese that their capital is called Peking, or that the Indians should call Mumbai something else. The Falkland Islands are named that because they are British and the people who live there use that name and no other. This is the English language wikipedia and although it may explain curiosities, if you went to the Spanish language version and renamed Espana with its 'correct' English name it would not last long. Give it a rest here. --Gibnews

Yours examples of Pekin and Mumbai are not valid because there is not a dispute over them. There are not british but under british administration' as UN said and falklands could be see offensive too by some of the world s half population that called them Malvinas or Malouines (french). Anyway I like yours ISO solution. Jor70 13:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'dispute' is a paper tiger, used to distract attention from more immediate issues. However I note the UN C24 use the form Falkland Islands (Malvinas) which is the ISO designation and on this occasion it may defuse the situation. That some people call the territory that is a matter of fact however wrong that is, and the battle needs to be taken to international organisations rather than here. --Gibnews

As of 2006, I dont know what you mean with more immediate issues. As is written in the Argentine Constitution the claim will never end. The World (even the US!) states them as Administered by UK, claimed by Argentina but I agree that we cannot do much more here and the ISO solution is appropiate, helping people to find not only british sources Jor70 14:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not relevant- in English they are always refered to as the Falkland Islands, and the war as the Falklands War. Of course the Falkland Islands article has a whole section to deal with the naming issue, as appropiate. But it is not appropiate to list the fact that they are referred to as the Malvinas in each and every article that mentions the Islands. What is so special about the ARA San Luis article that requires that badly written footnote? Astrotrain 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The current draft does not make any sense (poor grammar). Astrotrain 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing that is relevant is that it is causing a dispute. So, in order to solve the dispute an encyclopaedic compromise is needed. The article is a free standing article. Therefore solving the naming issue in it is wholly relevant. Unilaterally removing it may be bold, but it is not appropriate. Let's not get another revert war started over this. phrase it better by all means, but note the building consensus here, please. Fiddle Faddle 15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense! That is enough reason to remove. Why confuse people when they can go to the Falkland Islands page and read the whole story behind the naming issue? What is so special about this page that requires the footnote? Astrotrain 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It requires something, and a footnote, especially in smaller font, is an excellent, encyclopaedic, NPOV, and insignificant way of achieving it. How do I know it requires something? Because I an English, because I dislike the Argentine claim to sovereignty, and dislike unlawful invasions. But I accept that one way of keeping the peace is to allow those who need to see the name "Malvinas" present and explained in a flat manner. And I know it to be necessary because we would not otherwise be discussing it instead of rewording a rather poorly worded article. The task is to write encyclopaedic articles, not to get involved with POV stuff. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only being added because the sour faced argies/argie lovers on here have got a serious axe to grind, with anyone who refers to it by it's correct name in the context of ENGLISH language wikipedia, the Spanish language ARA San Luis article can have Malvinas coming out of its arsehole but here as you can tell it is reffered to as the Falklands, as stated; the article isn't Falklands/Malvinas war it's Falklands war. Notice how something like the P-80 Shooting Star article just says Korean War, it doesn't say Korean War / 조국해방전쟁; 祖國解放戰爭 / 한국전쟁; 韓國戰爭 / 朝鲜战争; 朝鮮戰爭, wind your fucking necks in. King nothing 15:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil- there is no need for that rant. Although there is a disagreement, state your argument rationally, rather than simply attacking others. Astrotrain 15:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you there. With comments phrased like that it is hard to continue to continue to assume good faith. Disagreement hurts no-one. Incivility hurts many, and hurts Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

On the necesity of a refence to the Malvinas name within the article even though it is not an article about the islands itself, I think it provides crucial information to the reader that might want to search more information about the topic (in this case a battleship). Otherwise, he/she might not be able to find relevant articles from Argentine sources, leaving him/her with only a small sub-set of the existing articles on the net he/she might be interested to read. The compromise of a small-font footnote seams to me both harmless and appropiate. Mariano(t/c) 06:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That is complete rubbish. If someone wanted to search for more information and wanted an Argentine source, they would need to be able to speak Spanish, and would obviously aready know about the Malvinas name. Astrotrain 16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the current footnote, although anyone capable of reading Argentine Sources probably knows the Falkland Islands are exclusively called Malvinas by Argentina.

Gibraltar was an interesting place to follow the conflict as we had both sides presented via the BBC and TVE. Today its simply a matter of chosing a satellite TV channel and one can watch whatever, but then we got the same bit of film shown repeatedly. The world changes, at least in some ways. --Gibnews

I think the footnote is the perfect place for it. This is the EN Wiki after all and the footnote is a good way of mentioning the name with the proper preponderance in the English world. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Decoy

Noted fact tag by Dagosnavy, as far as I'm aware the problems that ARA San Luis had with both torpedoes and Fire Control System meant that it was unable to engage. There was no need to decoy torpedoes. Justin talk 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the reference Submarine Operations during the Falklands War - Lt Cdr Steven R. Harper USN, "Later, when the Arrow was retrieving her towed countermeasure 'it was damaged -- conclusive proof the the British electronic countermeasures had outwitted the SST-4's homing device.'⁴".^{[page 11]} Citation 4 (chapter 5) of that reference, itself a US Naval War College paper, is "Edwyn Gray -- The Devil's Device: Robert Whitehead and the History of the Torpedo -- (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1991), p. 240."

The reference makes no mention of one torpedo not leaving the tube during the Arrow attack, but it does suggest that, "There is also evidence that the STS-4 torpedoes were not properly prepared in the torpedo room before loading the weapons in the torpedo tubes. This error did not allow the torpedoes to arm themselves after time of fire.", and "... and the damage, but not destruction, to Arrow's countermeasure sled are consistent with this thesis.", but gives no reference for this assumption. -- 58.147.52.66 (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is his personal take on the matter but is far from conclusive as its based on supposition. Regards. Justin talk 09:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

With the Type 209 the torpedoes are inserted from the outside of the submarine. There is no torpedo room or compartment on a Type 209. And the statement about the Arrow is totally counter to what the German and Dutch engineers stated conclusions were that were sent to Argentine after the Falklands War to find out what went wrong. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Resources

The article is pretty much a mess, written in an informal, speculative tone. To single out one part in particular:

"The British ships present to counter the Argentine submarine threat were: one carrier, eleven destroyers, five nuclear-powered submarines, one diesel submarine, and over 25 helicopters. Even though no ships were sunk by the San Luis, this is an impressive amount of ships to be tied up by one diesel powered submarine. This is more impressive considering that she was not even hit by the British force"

This implies that the Royal Navy dedicated eighteen warships and submarines to tracking down ARA San Luis. Leaving aside the fact that there were only seven destroyers, and three nuclear fleet subs in the Falklands, the quote seems calculated and disingenuous.

Two of the sources used in the article date from around 20 years ago or more, when reliable information on submarine operations in the Falklands was very limited, public domain sources were unreliable, and speculation rife. The Defense Technical Information Center in particular seems to be constructed almost entirely out of inaccuracies (the author asserts that the Argentine plan was to occupy the islands only temporarily, that the invasion was "bloodless, and that the US would likely have entered the war on the side of the UK if the latter lost a carrier). It is totally unsuitable for use as a source. Paddyboot (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion to improve it? (Hohum ^@) 01:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed that part. The claim represented in that quote is preposterous. jamesgibbon 09:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And I've restored it, that considerable assets were dedicated to hunting the ARA San Luis is well known. Removing sourced material isn't the way to start improving any article. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have once again removed it. I can find no justification whatever for the the substance of the claim. jamesgibbon 12:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And it has been restored again, the justification is the source from which the quote derived, which is backed up by the Official History by Freedman. Again removing sourced information will rapidly earn you a block. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Let me see if I can find a way to retain in the text the claim that you're so profoundly attached to, while making clear that it's unreliable - to restore a bit of integrity to the piece. There's no question by the way that it is incorrect, as another user has already pointed out, above. For example, the quote claims that one carrier was "present to counter the [submarine] threat - if you know anything at all about this conflict, you'll know that both carriers were there principally for other purposes. Further, it explicitly states that one carrier, eleven destroyers and six submarines were "tied up" by the San Luis. You must surely realise that this is incorrect.

I don't deny of course that anti-submarine operations were carried out, nor that the task force was wary of the threat. But it's very obvious from any authoritative account that all of the task force ships were able to conduct operations that had nothing to do with countering a submarine threat, for considerable periods of time. I'd be particularly interested to know if you can tell us which eleven of the eight destroyers that took part in the conflict were "tied up"? jamesgibbon 15:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the personal remarks for now but I will seek an admin intervention if you persiste. Your own WP:OR is no substitute for a source, find out what an authoritative source says. Wikipedia requires a WP:RS for WP:V. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you don't want to be reasonable about this. I have conducted no "original research" on this, as you already know. I think you also know that Harper's thoughts on the matter are far more appropriately described as "original research". I hope you'll agree that Admiral Woodward's memoirs of the war, which I imagine you have already read, are not "original research".

Woodward's account of the war has all of the destroyers, and both of the carriers, going about their business in a way they could not if they were "tied up" by a submarine threat. Of course some of the helicopters were used in anti-submarine operations and I dare say some of the surface craft attended to that problem as well. But if you can try to be reasonable about this you must surely see that the unambiguous claim that one of the carriers, and three more destroyers than actually were present were "tied up" is wrong.

Woodward is quite open and honest about the restrictions placed on the movement of his surface vessels by the air threat, so I cannot imagine why he would falsify his memoirs with respect to the San Luis. He does make clear that it's an irritation, which is fair enough. Unfortunately for your point of view, he also makes quite clear that his surface fleet goes about its operations in a manner which would simply not be possible if the vast majority of them, including three destroyers which are not actually in the South Atlantic, were "tied up" by an Argentine submarine.

Furthermore, none of the independent articles on the various carriers and destroyers here in Wikipedia, nor anywhere else I have seen, makes reference to them being "tied up" by anti-submarine operations.

I have never yet, in about seven years of contributing to Wikipedia, taken part in an "edit war". I would like to work with you to improve the piece; that is my only motivation - because Harper's account is quite prominent in this piece, and it is undoubtedly at the very least problematic and misleading. The qualifications I applied are accurate. The claim made by Harper is not consistent with other accounts and ill-conceived, and they help to alert readers to that problem, which can only be a good thing, therefore I shall restore them. If you insist on reverting sensible improvements to an article, I do think we should seek mediation on this.

Oh and by the way, the claim as represented here that the San Luis interfered with the operation to recover a Sea King on 18 May is also a little misleading, so I shall fix that also. See 'One Hundred Days', Woodward's diary piece for 18 May. jamesgibbon 19:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't interpret the "tied up" comment in the quote to mean that all of the forces mentioned were constantly dedicated to anti-submarine operations only, so I don't see a problem with that. I do agree that the mention of eleven destroyers is problematic. The opinion of other references on the impact of San Luis would help to resolve this. You both seem to suggest that you have other reliable sources to do this. (Hohum ^@) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I also happen to have Woodward's book and I'm now wondering if we've read the same book. To claim that Woodward dismissed the submarine threat posed by the ARA San Luis is, to be frank, utter nonsense. Freedman refers to the submarine threat and the concern it caused on p 219,220, 275-276, 302, 308,480, 482 and 484-5. Like Hohum I don't believe Harper is claiming those resources were solely dedicated to hunting the ARA San Luis as that is also nonsense but equally the official history does indicate that the submarine threat was of major concern. Woodward was a submariner and for any naval commander to dismiss the threat posed by an ultra-quiet, ultra-modern diesel electric SSK would be deriliction of duty. Edit warring your personal opinion into the article is putting you on a fast track to be blocked. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It remains that the current quote has a glaring error - for that reason alone I don't think it should remain, even if the Royal Navy did tasksignificant resources to anti submarine warfare. Can you provide a quote or text which is in the same vein which is supported by a reliable source? (Hohum ^@) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the author was lumping Frigates and Destroyers into the same bracket. I will look at make a suggestion from Freedman. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the quote, on reflection I think it was a mistake to include it. The answer is to remove it, not to add WP:OR to counter what is a fairly obvious case of exagerration by an agenda driven author. WCM_email 12:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)