Talk:USS Scorpion (SSN-589)

message: What little material we got shows the bow section with little damage. From there the U.S.Navy's one goal is to not have another Project Azorian happen.
In addition to nuclear torpedoes Scorpion's prize does include a nuclear reactor somewhere on the ocean bed, as opposed to K-129.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.108.100 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  like K-129 

message: How does the paragraph talking about  Peter Huchthausen in Red Star Rogue paragraph relate to the Red Star Rogue book ? Is it in the book ?  Could this paragraph be moved to make a own one ? Solsticedhiver (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Peter Huchthausen paragraph 

message: Moved around the paragraphs to establish some logic. -- Esemono (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved around

message: I recently put up a link to the only web page which has all the information and pictures of all the crew who went down with the Scorpion. In addition, this web page has much information about the Scorpion itself including a log of the ships activities during the time it was in commission. This link was then erased as it was felt that it was for advertising. This is not true and the web page is donated and the thousands of hours that have been spent putting in the information on this ship and hundreds of others have been donated. It was not done for any rating scheme either, but merely to allow many who are looking for a place to find information on their family members or on the families of other crew members of the Scorpion. There are other web pages by individuals still listed on this page and other than outdated news, and some individual personal information, not much is on these pages. In conjunction with two other people, I recently spent a long time listing links to Wiki for over 7000 navy ships, so that people looking at our free pages could use the Wiki info also. I see no reason why whoever makes these big decisions on Wiki could not share a little the other way. IT's for sure we could take all our Wiki links off if Wiki doesn't want to support others the same way they are supported. I was intending to go in and also add to the page to put in information that is not there, but I certainly am not going to argue with people who never spent the three years I did on the boat about what should be there and shouldn't.I think if you look at the first link you have left up there, you'll see it is a web page by a shipmate with the same basic format as the one I attempted to put up, with the exception that the one I was putting up has much information that many of the children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, etc are looking for about relatives they never got to meet. I get notes and letters on a weekly basis wanting this type of information which is why the web page was created. I also feel that if what exists and is true is not allowed to be on this page, then why are things which are obviously nothing but advertisements allowed there. For instance, One author is referenced as being a Nuclear Engineer. In fact, there were no Nuclear Engineers in the Nuclear Navy. That is a special degree awarded at a very few Universities and certainly the designation can not be given to someone who at the time didn't have a college degree. I could list item after item that is incomplete or false, but that is beyond the point of this note. I am very disappointed that Wiki decides to limit information that is available to people who are looking for it. Since a comment was made that I made an unsigned insertion, 
I'll leave my name and my email address as I am not afraid to stand behind what I write.
Bill Lee
sub_ssn589@yahoo.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELT589 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "In fact, there were no Nuclear Engineers in the Nuclear Navy."-well, that statement is factually untrue, and I'm wondering how you made that determination. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting up a link on the page 

message: I'll have to check the air date, since my wife DVRs it, but a couple nights ago Bob Ballard was on John Stewart's show talking about the Titanic search, and he mentioned the tie-in to the Scorpion.  I was three-quarters asleep, but he said something that sounded like "looking for two nuclear weapons for the Navy, and by the time we found them we didn't have much time to find Titanic.
Not to jump to unfounded speculation, but as Ballard was a reserve Navy officer at the time, anyone think the Navy/Ballard might have recovered the Mk45's and kept it quiet? They're not exactly forthcoming with details about the whole thing as it is anyway, and Ballard kept the details of the combined search quiet for some years....WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballard on John Stewart Show 

message: Why so few references?--andreasegde (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. This one's above start-class but needs a lot of work.  Too much reliance on a book that's not held all that high by many authorities. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article 

message: The reference to the court of inquiry needs to be fleshed out -- do we have details like date of publication, convening authority, etc?
For COI see  http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20SCORPAIN%2027%20MAY%2068.pdfBrandywine589 (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court of inquiry 

message: There is a POV battle between adherents to the sinking theories, which is quite condescending at times (e.g. "Craven had no data to support his claim and he was informed of his errors", "He has not changed his story despite the facts", "However, even Admirals get technical details twisted about and confused.", etc.).  I've tagged it accordingly. Superm401 - Talk 08:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stripped a lot for reasons I've given in the edit log, namely neutral point of view, original research, editorialising and statements being unsupported by the sources.  I have only looked at the "Unsubstantiated theories about the loss" section and not in too much depth so am leaving the tag for now as I suspect there are problems else where as well. Dpmuk (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problems with sinking theories 

message: I'm trying to clarify what some believed to have happened.  The torpedo was believed by some to have started running (while still inside the sub).  My (possibly wrong) understanding is that it activated while in the torpedo room.  At this point, the torpedo would think it has been launched on a heading away from the sub, although it is still inside the sub. The crew would have notified the captain, who would have immediately ordered a 180 degree turn.  This is done to convince the torpedo's guidance system that the torpedo has turned back toward the sub that supposedly launched the torpedo.  Once the torpedo thinks it is on a heading back to where it came from (a 180 degree turn), its own safety measures deactivate the torpedo.  
For my argument to make any sense, the paragraph about "Accidental activation of torpedo" would have to state that the torpedo was not released from the tube.  Then, the statement about Dr. Craven saying that the sub moved back to its original course, would also need to be changed.  Dr. Craven said that the sub headed West (the approximate original course home) to go home, but that the acoustic signals led him to believe the sub had turned back toward the East (back toward Rota).  That would have happened if a torpedo accidentally activated inside the sub, but could not be launched.  That being the case, the turn would have been 180 degrees - not 360.  The sub would not have been on a Westerly course, done a 360 degree turn, ending up going Westerly again.  A full circle turn is not a measure that would get the sub away from a launched torpedo that turned back toward where it came from.  Dr. Craven asserted that the sub was going East when the various implosions (acoustic events) occurred.  As noted, Hamilton said the acoustical data did not indicate that was what happened.  However, using Bayesian search theory, and assuming the sub did turn 180 away from its home course, Dr. Craven's assumptions lead to the discovery of the Scorpion.
I'm new to editing information, so if I am stepping on anyone's toes, please let me know.
Note: I changed "360" to "180" in the text, but then realized that the paragraph would need further editing.  I have done nothing more because of my newbie status.  The only source I have is Blind Man's Bluff.
Dennis Clark  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnc45 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental activation of torpedo 

message: The claim be some editors about references is a bit far fetched.  Making a comment that there is no evidence of explosive damage does not have a reference as there is no evidence of explosive damage to reference. 
Would the warring editor please explain himself.  Commentary on the lack of evidence is germane to the article.  An article that references fiction books claiming explosions is of no value if there are no legitimate references that provide evidence of a an explosion.  So stating that there is no evidence of an explosion is simply stating the reality of the article.   Please put my edits back.  You are doing a disservice to the people who lost their lives and providing more disinformation to the family members.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandywine589 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Nothing I've seen you add has any sourced evidence to support it. That is not how WP works. You may even be right, but without showing the sources that you are using to come to this conclusion, your additions count as WP:OR and are considered unreliable. They're not considered to be wrong (we simply can't judge), but they are considered to be unreliable, as there's no evidence to support them.  Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War 

message: "On 20 July (1966), McDonald deferred SUBSAFE extensions, otherwise deemed essential until 1963."
As you can't defer something to a date in the past, presumably this is supposed to be '... deemed essential since 1963' (SUBSAFE having been introduced then) or '... deemed essential until (some date in the future) '  
Which? Lovingboth (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SUBSAFE deferment  

message: I am a retired commercial captain with an unlimited master's license and 50 years of ocean going experience. I spent 25+ years trying to unravel the USS Scorpion mystery. I suspected an undersea earthquake all along but was unable to prove it until a few years ago. I have now posted my hypothesis and proofs at http://www.deafwhale.com/uss-scorpion/
I hope you enjoy it. I will also be more than willing to discuss the finer points with any knowledgeable person. In fact, I believe other researchers might be able to expand on my work.
Thank You,
Capt. David WilliamsDw2938 (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothesis: USS Scorpion Sunk By Undersea Earthquake 

message: The Disappearance of the USS Scorpion: The History of the Mysterious Sinking of the American Nuclear Submarine
https://www.amazon.com/Disappearance-USS-Scorpion-Mysterious-Submarine-ebook/dp/B01K6IY8E4/ref=pd_typ_k_sp_1_6/159-7260906-6500813?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=1X4449KGME0ECEGS0HYQ
It's a longer collection of theories here discussed here and other places about what happened.  Which sometimes is exactly what you people who come to wikipedia are looking for, so valuable for all that.
Lacreighton (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book 

message: Has anybody read the book Scorpion Down: Sunk by the Soviets, Buried by the Pentagon: The Untold Story of the USS Scorpion?
I had a few years ago.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorJared29 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scorpion  

message: I was talking recently to a person who was involved in one of the search operations for the sub; he mentioned a theory about a Soviet submarine ramming Scorpion in a badly failed chicken run maneuver. The current article has one confusing paragraph which does mentions collisions but is not specific to this event, this may need more referencing and clarification. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a theory of being rammed by a Soviet sub? 

message: "Intensive vetting of submarine component quality, SUBSAFE, was required, coupled with various improvements and intensified structural inspections – particularly, hull-welding inspections using ultrasonic testing – and reduced availability of critical parts like seawater piping."? Seems like a nonsequitor to me; please rewrite. Autodidact1 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this phrase mean? 

message: An oceanographer I knew once declared (I do not remember with what level of confidence) that internal waves (waves in stratified layers of the deep ocean) had crushed the Scorpion.  Was he talking through his hat? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Submarines have several depth ratings, including one called the crush depth. As for your question, the article cites a reliable source, Silent Steel by Stephen Johnson, that discusses various explanations by experts for the sinking. --50.39.105.219 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal waves