Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Responsibility

The article doesn't mention anything regarding responsibility. The coach led teenagers in a dangerous environment, had no skills, and didn't use or at least consult a professional guide. He endangered their life and that of the rescuers (with one fatality), not to mention the cost of the rescue. Is he simply going to be let off the hook? It certainly wouldn't be the case in other countries. Bomazi (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There's already a whole paragraph on legal aspects under "Responses: Local"? I'd advise you to steer clear of WP:FORUM here and stick to reporting what reliable sources may have said. Our personal opinions count for nothing. But I'd ask you if you think he was responsible for the unexpected rainfall? It seems he was forced to lead the boys to safety, by moving further into the case, because the cave entrance was flooding. One could argue that the authorities were "to blame" for not adequately protecting the cave entrance at this time of year? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I can claim to have once possibly saved four lives... I was on a weekend caving trip (doing serious geophysical work) and on Sunday night all but two of us had left and we were just washing the caving ladders we'd used for the seventy-foot entrance to the large cave in which we'd been measuring temperatures and humidity since Friday night. Then we heard a weak cry of Help from the cave. Sure enough, two guys and two girls had gone down our ladders and hadn't made any attempt to let us know they were down there. It's a very large and very pretty cave, shawls in particularly, and noisy in a pretty way too, with lots of drips, and I guess they thought they'd be quick and got entranced.
So we re-rigged the ladders and a belay rope PDQ, we were both still fully geared up fortunately as we knew it was about to get dark so we wanted our helmet lights handy, and my mate went down and we got them all up safely, they were all shaking a bit (which probably helped... we were scared they'd all just grab the ladder when it came down but they all just sat there smiling weakly). They were not well equipped at all, one torch between the four of them, no matches to test for CO2 which is a problem in parts of that cave, sneakers jeans and t-shirts and it was getting cold, but they seemed basically OK.
Point is, we were both wondering how to best point out that they'd been stupid and lucky... but as they recovered, the girls were giving the guys a much better dressing down than we could possibly have managed. Poor guys. And nobody had died. So I'm guessing that the coach will get similar. Poor guy. One dead.
They never said thank you. But we were just glad that they hadn't been just five minutes later finding the ladders gone! Maybe they had told the ranger where they were going, I doubt it, and there was no sign-in book in those days (there is now) but I guess their abandoned car would have tipped someone off as to where they were if anyone knew they were missing. Maybe. Maybe it's best not to know. Andrewa (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
That's pretty dreadful, Andrewa. I assume that was somewhere down under, as they say. In my own experience of caving (in Wales, the Dales, Peak District and Mendip) non-cavers using an electron ladder etc. to descend a cave is a real rarity. Unscrupulous and lazy experienced cavers will certainly pirate other's rigging, for a rapid "tackle-free" trip. But they are always fully equipped and aware of the risks. Of course. this cave is just pretty horizontal with no pitches. And leads off a show cave. So incidents like this are far more likely. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ... did I hear someone complaining about WP:FORUM?? It could be hatted as off-topic, but the BLP issues are relevant to improving the article, and the issues my story raised are also relevant IMO in highlighting the difficulty of a commonsense judgement... did we have responsibility? What if the users of our gear had been seven years old? We were preoccupied with our hygrothermographs and didn't even think of such things until after this incident. Andrewa (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mean to start a debate. I merely suggested that the article should cover this issue. I hadn't seen the paragraph you mentioned: it is a start. IMHO this issue is significant enough to justify a separate section, even if there might not be much information available now. Most importantly I don't think many people would think of searching for that information where it currently is. I know I didn't. Bomazi (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
If there's currently insufficient reliably sourced material for a separate section, then we don't yet need a separate section. There's also WP:BLP to keep in mind. Incidentally, Burr–Hamilton duel, where BLP is not relevant, was on the Main Page the other day. I was quite puzzled to see nothing in the lede explaining what criminal charges were faced by the prominent politician who publicly shot and killed another prominent politician; and indeed that information was hidden as the second paragraph of an "Aftermath" section that starts by talking about other things entirely. It's also dwarfed by subsections about "Monuments" et cetera. That article is B-class. MPS1992 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Very good point regarding BLP. Andrewa (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
CNN article includes some relevant comments by Unsworth from an interview with CNN: "The flooding of the cave could not have been predicted, he said, as the floodwater had come through three to four weeks earlier than last year. 'These kids were just totally unlucky. Wrong place, wrong time,' he said. 'It happened very quick. You can't blame the coach, you can't blame the kids.'C3MC2 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Fwiw I read that it was the kids who pressured the novice coach to let them go to the cave, where they've been many times before and apparently knew like the back of their hands. SlightSmile 01:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Eleventh rescue

I'm interested to see that event in the article. Where did he backtrack to in order to find the guide rope back? A second diver swimming behind as was originally planned but later deemed too redundant might have solved that without losing 90 minutes. SlightSmile 10:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The romanization of Thai names

The boys' names are currently romanized in accordance with this BBC article. I would like to point out that the g in Duganpet Promtep (ดวงเพชร พรมเทพ), the r in Nattawut Takamrong (ณัฐวุฒิ ทาคำทรง), and the e in Mongkol Booneiam (มงคล บุญเปี่ยม) are very clearly typos. (In the very same article, the BBC states that the surname of Mongkol Booneiam's father is Boonpiem!)

More generally, I would like to point out that these BBC spellings are in no way official; other sources often have entirely different spellings. (For example, The Guardian has Pipat Bodhi in place of Pipat Pho.) In my opinion, we should ditch these BBC spellings and romanize the boys' names in accordance with the Royal Thai General System of Transcription.

Name RTGS Age
ชนินทร์ วิบูลย์รุ่งเรือง Chanin Wibunrungrueang 11
ภาณุมาศ แสงดี Phanumat Saengdi 13
ดวงเพชร พรมเทพ Duangphet Phromthep 13
สมพงศ์ ใจวงศ์ Somphong Chaiwong 13
มงคล บุญเปี่ยม Mongkhon Bunpiam 13
ณัฐวุฒิ ทาคำทรง Natthawut Thakhamsong 14
เอกรัตน์ วงค์สุขจันทร์ Ekkarat Wongsukchan 14
อดุลย์ สามออน Adun Sam-on 14
ประจักษ์ สุธรรม Prachak Sutham 15
พิพัฒน์ โพธิ Phiphat Phothi 15
พรชัย คำหลวง Phonchai Khamluang 16
พีรภัทร สมเพียงใจ Phiraphat Somphiangchai 17
เอกพล จันทะวงษ์ Ekkaphon Chanthawong 25

Khiikiat (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC).

As long as the preferred spelling is linked to a reliable source. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It is ok, in my opinion to have 2 or even 3 spellings. Might add their nicknames, too, because most of them have only 1 spelling. Vanrich (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Transcriptions of Thai person's names are extremely haphazard in general. Guidelines in WP are to use the transcription as used by the person first, otherwise if known, the spelling on their identity card (but I understand several of them are undocumented). If both these are unknown then use RTGS. Spellings in foreign documents (and especially the press) can be completely ignored and cannot be used as source. Sourcing for RTGS is the Thai spelling plus the official RTGS rules. −Woodstone (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for User Khiikiat. I think this is a great improvement on what we had till now. Actual Thai names is the way to go. Although we may need more expert Thai inputs on this, it can be incorporated for now on our main page. werldwayd (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Before, the article had nicknames, like Titan. They were removed because some editor thought they were just nicknames. Now, we have proof that the kids use it themselves. In Wikipedia, we use "Bill Clinton" and "Jimmy Carter", not William J. Clinton or James E. Carter. Therfore, the separate column should be added with nicknames. See this BBC video where each boy introduces himself by his nickname only. Please discuss any opposition. I will wait and not insert it pending a discussion or adequate time lapse. Vanrich (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe some genius removed their nicknames. My vote is - go for it. Put the nickname back in. SlightSmile 19:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and put the nicknames back in. SlightSmile 23:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I had added the Thai and RTGS names given by the (not so lazy) user Khiikiat in the table, but the Thai names were reverted. Can WWGB point me to the guideline where authentic names in non-latin scripts are disallowed? In my view original names are always of added value. −Woodstone (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The guideline MOS:FORLANG provides that "if the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence". Since the subject of the article is the cave rescue, a Thai language equivalent of that title is permitted. Other than that, there is no guideline for or against the inclusion of other Thai language names of people or places. I would argue that there is absolutely no benefit to the English language Wikipedia of including names in Thai script that are meaningless to English readers. In the absence of relevant policy or guideline, there will need to be consensus to include such foreign language names in the article. This section is not the place for such discussion, as it relates to the romanization of Thai names, not the inclusion of Thai script. WWGB (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
That same guideline also contains "Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged.". −Woodstone (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
RTGS is always an approximation. The individuals should have their names in the language they write their names in, meaning in Thai script. User Khiikiat's input is greatly commendable. The Latinized RTGS is just a guideline of how we can pronounce them albeit approximately. Keep the Thai name and the RTGS name. The nicknames are also relevant if they officially use them as football players. So add those too. werldwayd (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Woodstone's quote above is taken from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Usage in first sentence. It refers to "an article on a person". As the article in question is about an event, and the guideline is about the first sentence in the lead of an article, the quote has no relevance here. Again, there is no benefit to English language readers from including names in Thai script. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Name of article

Is there any sentiment to rename this "2018 Thailand cave rescue" or something similar? I think naming conventions lean toward a more readily recognizable name. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

See the top of Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue/Archive 2. MPS1992 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually Tham means "cave" and luang means "great". So the title is now "great cave cave rescue". Any suggestions how to avoid this ugly redundancy? −Woodstone (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm new at this and I don't know how to "support" on that page, but I strongly support this idea. It's the first thing I thought when I saw this page; I hope that we never need to have more rescues, but realistically this page should be called "2018 Tham Luang cave rescue". Ikjbagl (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Some will try to argue that because the naming convention has been previously ignored by editors who didn't know of its existence, it no longer applies. Firebrace (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been very extensive discussion on a name change and the clear consensus was that it remain as is. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Saman Kunan article

Article deleted after AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While the ppl above still can't upload a picture of the guy to the article, I think he deserves a standalone one on it's own, seeing how the two british divers, their organization and the cave itself apparently pass the notability guidelines I don't see how he may not, especially after he was awarded the order and all Openlydialectic (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. But is he notable apart from being involved in this incident? You're free to upload an image of him at any time. Here's the guidance: WP:NFC. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The photo suggested in the previous discussion has now been uploaded here. The fair use rational needs to be checked and the image may need to be cropped before adding to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The image is now marked as "orphaned" and will be deleted after 7 days unless it is used in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
So it may now be more appropriate to add it at Saman Kunan, although the Fair Use Rationale would need to be adjusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not notable prior to the event, his actions can be covered in the rescue article; WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Neither was the cave or the two british divers, or am I wrong? Openlydialectic (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
In answer to your above question, unfortunately you do at least appear to be wrong with regard to the British divers. Although their bio articles were created as a result of the current incident, the articles appear to show that they were already notable (which is not necessarily the same as 'famous') for other events prior to the incident, including other rescues, and various caving world records, etc. It is perhaps unfortunate that this has not being previously stated here, as this omission has perhaps tended to make us seem to be in violation of WP:BIAS. (I know nothing about our notability criteria for articles about caves, tho I suspect the criteria are different from those for notability of people).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Possible future support, current oppose. Currently, it is too short, for one thing. If it gets longer, then it is a possibility. One event people are discouraged but not prohibited. Look at Lee Harvey Oswald. Known for only one thing, shooting JFK. Look at JFK's infant son who died as an infant. He was known for nothing but has an article. When a section becomes too long, it becomes possible to have a sub-article, which is a separate article. Vanrich (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Not just Lee Harvey Oswald, but the police officer who he shot while trying to escape also has his own article, just as the rifle he shot the president with and his numerous friends and acquaintances: (Ella German, Marina Oswald Porter, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, George de Mohrenschildt, etc), but yeah, I totally agree with your sentiment. At this point his section is both small and outdated, I think he was buried half a week ago already. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Quite likely the relevant part of WP:ONEEVENT for those individuals is "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." Whether wisely or otherwise, the Kennedy assassination has spawned a vast amount of writing and speculation and other kinds of coverage over several decades, in a way that is not (or at least not yet) true of the present incident, so arguments based on treating the two events as somehow equivalent do not seem very persuasive.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I should note that the JFK assassination has inspired books, films, documentaries, television shows, songs, conspiracy theories, and an innumerable amount of references in popular culture. I think the comparison to Saman Kunan does not hold water (no pun intended). Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this is where WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Ehh, he is not my friend or an acquaintance. I've never even been to the South-East Asia in general. Surely you meant to say he does not pass the notability guidelines, but maybe you can provide some arguments for your thinking? As I said in the statement, the two British divers who found the kids did pass the guidelines and got 2 articles written about them, just as the cave itself. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:ONEEVENT applies; I don't think this person is notable outside of the rescue event. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mikeblas: please see the Vanrichs' comment and my reply above about the ONEEVENT rule. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Openlydialectic: I think the discussion here is about Saman Kunan, not the caves or the other divers. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • non-voting comment The section is now much longer, very big. The decedent was a competitive cyclist in Thailand, so not [[WP:ONEEVENT]. Also the earlier votes were before the section became much longer / very big. Thai Cave Person (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The section is only "very big" because you added much trivia and other unsourced content, since removed. Timing of his funeral and his cycling are completely irrelevant to a cave rescue article. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
"his cycling are completely irrelevant to the cave article". That would be a good reason to have a separate article. When editors write "not notable prior to the event", that is a sign of intentional or unintentional (probably unintentional) bias because a separate article has not been written. In Thai Wikipedia, the article on him is quite long in length and lengthy. Thai Cave Person (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not notable prior to the event, his actions belong the rescue article; WP:ONEEVENT. An independent article is not some kind of award for heroism, nor reward for anything - there simply isn't any reason to believe that the reader will not be better served by keeping this material in the 'rescue' article and comparisons with the death of JFK are spurious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Musk submarine

[1] This looks dubious but it's something to keep an eye on. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This too: [2] 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this from the article. Elon Musk states that his companies are developing ways to rescue the children, but they haven't actually been completed, tested, sent to Thailand, transported to the site, tested again, approved for use by the Thai Government, or used. It seems unclear to me whether the Thais would actually be very interested in using brand-new and untested technology to rescue children from a complex and very dangerous cave system. This seems much less significant than the experts and teams of experts from around the world who have travelled to Thailand and are actually helping, but aren't described at all in the article. Musk appears to be trying to milk this incident for PR purposes. Given that various sources say that parts of the caves are now free of water, it's hard to see how a little submarine would be very useful at present. I'd suggest only including this if/when Musk's assistance is accepted and used. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I wasn't suggesting including it in the article unless it actually was used or at least delivered. It was just something to be aware of in possible updates. Still I can't blame Musk or anyone else from wanting to help. This is pretty silly too, but same idea. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Musk's ground penetrating radar also sounds useless at that depth. But I've wondered if they could use acoustic rangefinding. Put some seismographs with precise clocks in the cave and make some vibrations (maybe using small explosions) on the ground, and do multilateration on the seismograph recordings. I'm sure they have thought of this though. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D, I find it really shitty of you to suggest bad intentions behind Musk actually trying to help, and you have absolutely no reason to believe that. What you believe is more likely a projection that says more about you than about him. As opposed to most people, and especially billionaires, Musk has a long history of actually wanting to do good in the world; you should try to read more about him. Furthermore, I find even the fact that he wants to help and is actually working hands-on on a possible solution, even if it turns out not to be used, noteworthy and interesting. It shows how many people are involved and trying to help, even people from the other side of the globe. --Jhertel (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I mostly agree (though I think Nick-D was perfectly well-intentioned!). Musk's attempts have been widely reported, including The New York Times and Business Insider. I was surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article. Apparently the "submarine" is nearly past the testing phase and will soon be sent to Thailand. — MusikAnimal talk 23:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Australia's public broadcaster is reporting that Musk "really wants the world to know he's at the cave rescue operation site in Thailand, and he's there to help", but his little submarine has been rejected as impractical. [3]. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Elon Musk has personally flew to Thailand and delivered his kid-sized submarine. So he deserves major credit for making this successful submarine. I reintroduced this into the article.Rwat128 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It may have been very magnanimous for Musk to fly in "personally" with his new product, but in my view he deserves no credit at all for the successful outcome of this event. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to remind anyone who needs their memory refreshed, that Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement or personal promotion. It seems the cave, in several places, is dry and requires quite a bit of climbing to go from one underwater section to the next. The mini-sub was nothing more than a desperate attempt at getting public attention while accomplishing absolutely nothing. This is not the kind of things an encyclopedia should focus on. Leave the Twitter clickwhoring where it belongs, far away from here. 92.161.54.249 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Elon Musk is a living individual and you should not be attributing to him un-sourced negative motivations for what was ostensibly an attempt to be of help. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bus stop: Here you go: Elon Musk's attempt to help the Thai cave rescue mission has attracted both praise and criticism (BBC News). Firebrace (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Firebrace for bringing that to my attention. Is there also criticism to be found out there of the dozen countries who tried to contribute to the task? Were the dozen countries that tried to help also accused of having ulterior motives? Bus stop (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
No, because they were all experienced cavers who knew what they were doing. Firebrace (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
So, not knowing what one is doing makes one a cynical opportunist with ulterior motives? The criticism there was for "advertisement or personal promotion" and "nothing more than a desperate attempt at getting public attention" and "Twitter clickwhoring". That seems over the top to me. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Musk's intervention was a bit silly. After being told the submarine was impractical, he left it behind in Thailand "in case it may be useful in the future". You may see a philanthropist, others see a megalomaniac who cannot admit failure. Firebrace (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
"he left it behind in Thailand" Even generosity is problematic? What is the reasoning there? Why doesn't he take his garbage home with him? You say that "Musk's intervention was a bit silly, but isn't his real offense that of being a billionaire? That is his only wrongdoing. It's not like he came over there with a hammer and hit someone over the head. You say he "cannot admit failure". Is that assertion supported by a source? Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I take back everything I said about Mr Musk. Earlier today, Musk gave an interview in which he said "we were huge idiots and didn't know what we were doing". [4] It seems he can admit failure after all... Firebrace (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that source. But to be clear he is not saying that in reference to mini-submarines. Yes, it illustrates that he can admit failure, but he is saying "we were huge idiots" in reference to the failure to fully utilize robots to automate an automobile assembly line. He admits that "[a] lot of the hoped-for automation was counterproductive." Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, well done. Firebrace (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The bottom line is that "A lot of people don't have much food on their table, But they got a lot of forks and knives". Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the repeated addition of "Billionaire entrepreneur and philanthropist" to the front of Elon Musk's name per MOS:JOBTITLE and WP:PEACOCK. Per MOS:JOBTITLE: Avoid also the use of titles that are unnecessary for clarity or identification in the context. Prefixing his net worth or job is not necessary to explain the context of what he offered. It is just puffery to include that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Guys should this source be added to its article itself Elon Musk?. Siton (talk) 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, there is now a discussion about this topic (or at least a direct consequence of it), at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tham Luang cave rescue. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: Musk has now apologised: [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether Musk was a generous genius or a shameless self-promoter, I'm not sure whether there should be an Elon Musk subsection in this article. Although his submarine garnered a good bit of press, it ultimately had no impact on the cave rescue. I don't think it is notable for an encyclopedia article, and certainly not on the level of having its own subsection. I think the subsection dedicated to Musk could be converted into a sentence in the "International response" portion of the article. Magic1million (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree there was far more press coverage of the Twitter spat compared with the technical contribution of the device. Was Musk even aware of the cave terrain when he "told his engineers" to design it? Seems a bit of a waste of effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Magic. A one sentence mention in the "International response" section for Musk and not more. SlightSmile 20:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
At some point, the huge list mess that makes up most of the "International response" should ideally be converted to prose as well. And condensed somewhat, in parts where it's repetitious. MPS1992 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It is important to emphasize that Unsworth, the main critic of Musk's submarine (with his violently perverse sense of humour) was NOT diving himself, and NOT personally rescuing anyone. He was just a cave-mapper, and "instructor" on rescuing issues, so not really a "hero" himself, since he wasn't risking his own life like the rescue-divers did.23.91.187.228 (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

And Musk was actually responding to someone else's twitter-request to participate. He didn't just impose himself out of some personal caprice, but decided not to ignore the request for his help.23.91.187.228 (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Could you explain, please, why it is "important to emphasize" anything about Unsworth? MPS1992 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to see that explanation too. So, on the one hand we had Unsworth, who lives in Chiang Rai, has explored the cave for the past six years and has "intimate knowledge of the cave complex"; while on the other hand we had Musk, a billionaire business magnate who lives in Bel Air, with no knowlegdge of caving or cave-diving whatsoever? Let's just suppose for a moment that Unsworth may have envisaged what might have happened if that submarine had been deployed and got jammed in the flooded cave passage, after the first 50 metres? How would things have turned out for everyone then, I wonder? Who's judgement would you tend to trust about that? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Because Unsworth attacked Musk unnecessarily. He was the cause of the confrontation, not Musk. Musk IS A VICTIM. And wikipedia shouldn't allow this confrontation to be carried out here taking Unsworth's (attacker's) bias and side, but remaining neutral.45.58.218.39 (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Two References are enough, for those who want more info on what Unsworth exactly said about Musk and the submarine and how he said it. His opiniated words about the use(fulness) of submarine is definitely unnecessary to be displayed in this article.45.58.218.39 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
His expert advice, on the uselessness of the submarine, was a factor in the successful outcome of this whole incident. So you say Musk "IS A VICTIM"?? How utterly ridiculous. Even Musk himself doesn't agree with that. Please stop edit warring and allow consensus to prevail. Else you may face sanctions. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You are being biased. he is maybe expert on caves, but on engineering and technical issues surely not. Musk who is undoubtedly an authority in his field, said Unsworth's understanding on the performances of his submarine were very incorrect. The decision was brought not to use the submarine and it is ok, but it's not fair to belittle Musk's good intentions, and misinform about the specifics and performances of the submarine. And I don't know on what basis you concluded that Musk wouldn't agree with someone saying he is a victim, since he didn't publicly deny feeling as a victim. His good intentions were viciously attacked with untruths and perverse humor. So your statement that Musk doesn't himself feel as a victim or doesn't agree with someone saying he is, is incorrect, based on nothing. 23.91.187.252 (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Show us one single source to support the claim that Musk sees himself as "a victim" in this. Your repeated assertion that the submarine might have been of any use in these circumstances betrays a complete misunderstanding of the limitations of such technology in an environment such as this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You said that Musk DOESN'T AGREE with me saying he is a victim. You show me a single source to support a claim where he says he doesn't agree with someone saying he is a victim. You claimed something incorrect. Not me. I used simple rationality that someone who is viciously perversely attacked is by any logic a - VICTIM.23.91.187.252 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
We still kicking this one around. Can we not boil that story down to three sentences and move on? Musk built a kid sized sub and some pods in a good faith attempt to help and ended up not being used. End of story. SlightSmile 21:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
That might have been the end of the story had Musk not chosen to use Twitter to accuse Unsworth of being a paedophile? I see Unsworth's assessment of the submarine as perfectly relevant and useful detail. We don't even have "stick his submarine where it hurts" any more. Submitting to IP sock edit warring is not really the way to go here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I only see now on reread your input about insults and technical issues with the sub. You have a point that the sub not being able to fit through the tight twisting passages would be an interesting aspect to the readers. Any of the name calling would be not much more than clutter. Technical aspects of the rescue is relevant, not the name calling. SlightSmile 22:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Wholly agree. I'm already at 3RR, so cannot revert any more. User:DrKay has kindly protected the article, but at the IP-preferred version, which I'm not sure was really the intention. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Unsworth is a subject matter expert on caving, the Tham Luang cave system in particular (possibly on cave-diving and/or cave diving rescues too, but I've not checked for sources to verify). He's not an expert on Musk or Musk's motivations (just as Musk is not an expert on Unsworth or anything about Unsworth and therefore we do not include Musk's views on that, no matter how well sourced). So I have re-included Unsworth's reliably sourced comments on matters about which Unsworth is an expert. MPS1992 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
And even if there were limitations of Musk's technology (in that environment), if Musk would agree to be true, that is no reason to call the effort a "PR stunt" and viciously attack with violent perverse humour. People should stay civilized (especially on camera, doing their own PR stunt in hour of glory and happiness), no matter how much time they spent in caves.23.91.187.252 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Unsworth is a specialist. He's entitled to his honest opinion, and to having it reported here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Someone insulted Musk's good effort to help which devolved into some nasty name calling. I assume he really wanted to help and sure it would have been a feather in his cap. Non relevant to this article. SlightSmile 21:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
However special you think he is, references to his 'honest opinion' are enough. His malicious words towards Musk's efforts have no place being displayed here (other than ref-link).23.91.187.252 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I said he was a "specialist". You know that's different to "special", don't you? We've not heard from IP 45.58.218.39 lately, have we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I know you said he was a 'specialist', but for you he is obviously something special when you want his opinion (technically incorrect) about the performances of the submarine included.45.58.224.26 (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on neutrality and unbiased writing is violated, since Unsworth's ill-intended words about Musk's submarine are included. Calling his words 'honest opion' when they are ended with vicious perverse humor is biased. Honesty shouldn't tolerate or include ill intentions. Ref-link should be enough, please remove Unsworth's words about the submarine from the text 45.58.226.148 (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Could you explain to us why Unsworth's opinion about the performance of the submarine is "technically incorrect", preferably with WP:RS source(s) which refute(s) his claim? Consensus here seems to be against you (and against the views of the other IPs which geolocate to Fibernetics Corporation in Toronto?) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Musk said that what Unsworth said regarding the submarine was not true, you can find many links googling "unsworth untruth", and how he said it and viciously ended his statement with a perverse joke makes it obvious that his intentions were not good. So how can you include on wikipedia words that were certainly said from bad intentions, just to hurt someone's name and reputation. If he didn't end the statement how he ended it, his untruths would maybe pass as believable. But that wasn't the case, and the whole world was witness to his ill intentions towards Musk. Therefore, it should be enought to say just "... Unsworth questioned the effectiveness of the submarine" with a ref-link, if he is for some reason so important to someone to be mentioned in the paragraph about Musk at all. 45.58.200.63 (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you link to an RS source here or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
ok, from here https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1019471467304513537 "...after Mr. Unsworth said several untruths & suggested I engage in a sexual act with the mini-sub, which had been built as an act of kindness & according to specifications from the dive team leader"45.58.200.63 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you tell us which were the "untruths"? That doesn't look like a proof that his opinion was "technically incorrect". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
A paragraph about Musk and his submarine should be a paragraph about that, and was it used or not. It shouldn't have OPINIONS spelled out in several sentences, especially OPINIONS obviously spoken from very ill and low intentions. Unsworth shouldn't personally be even mentioned in this paragraph. That would actually be the only proper way for this paragraph.45.58.200.63 (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Toronto IP editor, your repeated edit warring in the article has been described as disruptive and has led to the article being protected. The consensus is that what we currently have is sufficiently concise, editorially balanced and adequately sourced. This is not a message board for the Elon Musk Fan-club. I suggest you just leave things there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
What we have now in that paragraph is BIASED and ILL-INTENDED. And I'm not Musk's fan at all. You are full of some prejudices and wrong insights...

A paragraph about Musk and his submarine should be a paragraph about that, and was it used or not. Because what we have now is BIASED and ILL-INTENDED. It shouldn't have OPINIONS spelled out in several sentences, especially OPINIONS obviously spoken from very ill and low intentions. Unsworth shouldn't personally be even mentioned in this paragraph. That would be the only proper way for this paragraph. And there isn't any objective proof that the submarine would jam at any point, as Unsworth certainly wished it would. Plus there isn't any objective proof that it wouldn't be possible to unjam it fastly enough, even if it did jam at any point. 45.58.200.63 (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

And the submarine was built according to specifications from the dive team leader, so even if the submarine jammed, that would be the fault of those that provided Musk with wrong specifications, not his fault. Unsworth maybe didn't realize that at all, so the real jam was actually in Unsworth's head.45.58.200.63 (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought one thing that anyone carefully following the Musk aspect of the Tham Luang cave rescue would have learned, is that it's not a good idea to speculate publicly about the inside of someone else's head. (Two people involved did that, according to reliable sources.) You're now making that mistake right here -- as Unsworth certainly wished it would and the real jam was actually in Unsworth's head. Please read WP:BLP to understand why you can't do that. Repeating yourself about ill intent and perverse humor is not useful -- what is now in the article is a reliably sourced and widely covered opinion from an expert, not anything about jam or intentions or perverse humor. MPS1992 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Just noticed this discussion. I think that we have far too much on the Musk submarine effort. Whether it was well-intentioned or not, it was not used and is just a footnote to history, if that. Just a few sentences will do. Right now the back and forth about its utility and Musk's motives are just WP:UNDUE at the present time. Coretheapple (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You're not the only one to say that the section should be getting shorter -- in fact this discussion started with some detractors of Musk saying that the submarine should not be mentioned at all. If we're going to start trimming it back, however, then the material about Wing Inflatables and "designed, fabricated, and tested in one day" needs trimming back too. It's just a little promotional. MPS1992 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, what are our criteria for inclusion -- or exclusion -- of things that didn't happen? Immediately below the Musk section, there's something about an invitation to a football match that was never taken up, followed by an explanation of why the invitation was never taken up and how the football match might or might not have been watched instead (apparently inaccurate) -- why are we keeping that? Amongst other things that never happened, we're also still mentioning the French offer of help that was never taken up. MPS1992 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Musk currently has his own sub-section and gets 16 name-checks. Perhaps that's way too much? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll try and turn the sub-section into a three sentence summary later on today, unless someone else wants to have a go first. MPS1992 (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, make the section shorter. I agree. Remove the 2nd paragraph altogether please. Unsworth doesn't need to be mentioned at all in this section. That would make most sense and be most just and fair.45.58.200.63 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD on Saman Kunan has closed

RoySmith has closed the deletion debate about the article on Saman Kunan as merge, but has left the actual merging to others. Well, I've gone ahead and turned the page into a redirect (last version before blanking). I don't think there is a lot to merge. The only two things I can think of are the name of his widow and the statue of him that was proposed. I've added those to the article. Feel free to edit.

We could also rename the section from "Death of rescue diver" to "Death of Saman Kunan"? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The FUR for the image of Kunan may need to be adjusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Thanks for telling me. FUR has been fixed. - Manifestation (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

More Details Emerging on Rescue

To Whom It May Concern: The most recent interview with one of the British divers who discovered the 12 boys and their coach has revealed new details about the operation and which ought to be incorporated in this article. See Rick Stanton gives incredible account of Thai cave rescue.Davidbena (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I think the significant fact is that all of the children were unconscious while being rescued and so do not remember anything about it. Have added that link to the video in External links. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

To Whom it May Concern: This https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44876108 teaches us new things.
1. The boys did not go in the cave for birthday celebration.
2. The boys tried to dig out of the cave
3. The order of rescue was decided by the boys volunteering by raising their hand, not because they were the weakest or the strongest. Thai Cave Person (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. These details need to be corrected. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that the important new details from the British rescuers, revealed recently on the 20/20 news program and other outlets apparently, need to be in the article. According to the interviews, the rescuers demanded that they be unconscious, using a drug that was mentioned in the show, and when one of the boys regained consciousness during the rescue he was re-injected with sedative in a hazardous operation. All very important. I'll try to find print sources, which are usually better than video. Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
At a press conference in Adelaide Harris said it was part of the role of the divers to routinely re-inject the boys on the way out of the cave system comments available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpdi45LXMFoC3MC2 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

The name of the coach is spelled differently (Chanthawong in the list, Chantawong without the "h" in the text). Google results are inconclusive, however there seems to be a slight tendency towards the former. This probably could be harmonized. --131.169.89.168 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And another thing: in the "Search and Contact" section, the terms "monday" and so forth could arguably be replaced by the dates, which would make it easier to follow, especially if you skipped the previous section. --131.169.89.168 (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
One more inconsistency: "Banphot Booneiam, the father of 12-year-old Mongkol (...)" is a different spelling of both names to the list plus a different age given. (I presume this is "Mongkhon Bunpiam", 13 years old according to the list). Chanin's last name is also spelled differently in both sections, as is head coach Guntawong/Khantawong. --131.169.89.168 (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
For lack of more concrete information it is best to use the official Thai transcription based on the Thai spellings: Ekkaphon Chanthawong, Mongkhon Bunpiam, Chanin Wibunrungrueang. Changed in article. −Woodstone (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Title

The name "Tham Luang cave rescue" should be bolded in the first paragraph. It looks better that way. Even if there is an excuse not to use it, it should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longster1 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "Tham Luang cave rescue" doesn't appear in the first paragraph. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
See MOS:BOLDAVOID for the relevant guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Stateless

I cannot modify this article for some reason but can do it for other articles. Please help.

The boys are no longer stateless. They have been granted citizenship of the Kingdom of Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longster1 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you provided any source(s) for that claim? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done. This was already in the article under 'Legacy', but for extra clarification I've also added it right underneath the table containing the members. This is important information, because citizenship might provide these three boys and their coach with a future they otherwise will not have.
@Longster1: the reason you can't edit this article is because it has been semi-protected due to repeated disruptive editing. Semi-protection means that a page can not be edited by new users or users who are not logged in. Furthermore, it is not true that the boys and the coach have already been granted nationality. According to The Independent, this process may take up to six months. Let's hope for the best! Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on Elon Musk submarine proposal

There is a clear consensus for far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection on Elon Musk's submarine proposal.

On 11 August 2018, a spinout article was created at Elon Musk's submarine. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk's submarine was closed 22 August 2018 as merge to Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue.

Cunard (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At the present time [6] we have a subsection consisting of two lengthy paragraphs, titled "Elon Musk," describing his work on a child-sized submarine to rescue the boys and how it was not used. There is also a description of the controversy it engendered, which included a war of words between Musk and one of the rescuers that raises BLP issues. Currently the amount of space devoted to the Musk controversy is significantly longer than the "Recovery" subsection devoted to the actual removal of the boys from the cave. The question is how much space should be devoted to this matter. I think reasonable choices are.

  1. The current amount of space.
  2. Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection.
  3. More space
  4. Other

--- Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. As noted, the amount of space on this is twice as long as the description of the recovery itself! The submarines were not used. Going into back-and-forth of a personal nature is irrelevant to the article and excessive emphasis per WP:UNDUE. The controversy it engendered should certainly be mentioned, but just two or three sentences are sufficient for this whole sideshow, and there should be no subsection. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection.. I guess Musk could be named once. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. Base it on the intro from the section in the Elon Musk article "In July 2018, Musk attempted to provide assistance to rescuers during the Tham Luang cave rescue by ordering his employees to build a "kid-size submarine". Despite his efforts, cave rescue officials determined his device impractical and ultimately did not use it." Reword a little and put in the International section in United States. Can link to the section in Elon Musk.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. The speed he had the kid sub and pods ready to go as well as the tech problems, ie sub could never maneuver the tight twisting passages. And they already had a system that worked - got eight kids out so far. That's all. The name calling - I thought that was already settled, there's no place here for that clutter. Three, not more than five sentences for sure. SlightSmile 16:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. Publicity stunt and twitter storm of little lasting importance / relevance to the cave rescue. (well, perhaps the latest post-storm will have some importance - in the Musk article).Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. - Time to call WP:SNOW? NickCT (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. per everyone else. Pincrete (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. - Nothing more than a publicity stunt. –Davey2010Talk 14:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. (Summoned by bot) Undue Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not paper. The mini-submarine is a notable subject on its own, so it can have its own article. We have guidelines on how to handle this. Just WP:SPLIT the content and write a WP:SUMMARY with a couple sentences here. This way you can mention the incident with due weight to the topic, without losing the knowledge to the topic. This is what best serves readers who want to learn about the subject, which should be our priority here. Diego (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. barely worth mentioning. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Far less space, just a few sentences, and no subsection. This is a minor even which possibly got attention due to the Twitter incident. However, the coverage is typical of a news spike; a spurt of articles and then silence or brief mentions. We don't need an entire section for this (or even a new article).--DreamLinker (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

If we're mentioning the controversy, then it's going to be longer than two or three sentences. So I would suggest not mentioning the controversy -- just summarize basic facts. MPS1992 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe a new standalone article for Elon Musk cave rescue mini-submarine controversy?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) [7]
mini-submarine mini-controversy would cover it MPS1992 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
He is 6ft 1½, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Icewhiz that there may be relevancy in Elon Musk, not here. It relates to his mode of communicating, not to this article. So far I note that it is "snow" for reducing, but I imagine we should wait for more input before cutting down on the size. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Since this seems to be a SNOW situation I cut it all down to two sentences, which seems to be all it's worth, excluding the back-and-forth and the puffery. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Should the removed info on Wing Inflatables be restored. To me, it seems to be a significant fact that Elon asked for helps and a brand new product was designed, tested and shipped by another company in 24 hours. There should be one sentence about that. Z22 (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, that only served as a name-check for the company -- and an extra name-check for Musk. It's not a product in any meaningful sense if it was never used. I don't think it merits inclusion any more than the rest. MPS1992 (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The three boys and coach have been granted citizenship

As a follow up to the above "Stateless" thread:

"Three of the young soccer players who were trapped in a cave in northern Thailand for almost three weeks were granted Thai citizenship on Wednesday.

Their coach, Ekapol Chanthawong, 25, who was trapped in the cave with them throughout their ordeal also gained citizenship.

The boys were stateless, despite having been born in Thailand and their lack of citizenship deprived them of some basic benefits and rights, including the ability to travel outside of Chiang Rai, the northern province where they live. The area is home to ethnic minorities with roots in neighbouring Myanmar."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/09/thai-cave-rescue-stateless-boys-and-coach-granted-citizenship

Finally, it has happened. Let's hope that this will give them a future. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent reversion by SuperGuy212

I removed content about Saman Kunan's wife in[https:// en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tham_Luang_cave_rescue&diff=next&oldid=887646833&diffmode=source this edit], because it is not relevant to an article on the cave rescue itself. I was reverted by SuperGuy without explanation; perhaps he could provide one? – Teratix ₵ 06:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Teratix:

i do not know what you mean by that, i have no memory of rolling back any edits at tall

welcome to the fam (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@SuperGuy212: If you're going to claim you "do not know what I mean by that" even though I provided a direct link to the reversion – which was made yesterday – it makes it harder and harder to assume you are editing competently and in good faith. – Teratix ₵ 09:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Teratix:

Sorry about that, i was kinda half awake when i did make that post, but now i remember. I added it because i thought at the time it had a relation to the story, but now i realise it doesn't

welcome to the fam (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thai water management officials

This article suggests 4 of them got stuck near the entrance of the cave on or just beofre june 28:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48690524

©Geni (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Chamber 3?

Article references "Chamber 3" several times but never says what/where that is, and none of the attached graphics seem to mention anything about chambers with numbers. Also, article mentions a T junction in relation to Chamber 3 but that's also not defined and is not on the maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5640:8660:6143:BF1F:FAEE:C2C6 (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing about Elon Musk vs Vernon Unsworth?

The defamation case will be heard in 10/2019.

Musk won the case this month. Might be worth noting in the article, since it is related to the subject. - Indefensible (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Did the Thai Govt Lie about Rescue Method?

My Thai wife assures me that the boys were never drugged, but were transported inside specially built cylinders. Was this the official story given to the press? 68.185.33.158 (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article and are not the best place to ask questions like this, but no. Your wife probably misremembered and confused the facts with the brouhaha over Elon Musk's tweets. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Duration is badly described

Main intro says "no contact was made for nearly two weeks". Chronology later says 23 June - entered cave; 2 July - boys found. That sounds like 8, or 9 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8400:3130:9CCA:4AAA:8155:809A (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Cost

How much did the rescue cost (and who paid the bill)? I know the boys' lives are priceless, but just curious if it was simply a donation from the agencies/countries involved? -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s no way to answer that question, because by any ordinary definition, there was no cost. No one charged anyone for their services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.253.224 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The people may have worked for free, but they still had to spend money on food, toiletries, and gasoline for the pumps, as well as materials and equipment they didn't have at hand. They also had to make travelling expenses to get there. Even if you do volunteer work, travelling expenses are usually reimbursed. So yeah, this is an interesting question. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Time the group was found

There are contradicting claims in this article at what time of day the boys and their coach were found. One states that they were found at "22:00", while another one states "20:20"

Both are quoting the same source - a BBC liveticker - but neither the current version nor the archived version of the source seem to make mention of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:3F04:6988:3C9D:53E9:74C:BDC5 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue/Archive_3&oldid=1158947233"