Talk:Soviet submarine K-8

Untitled

Russians deleted this ?

What happened to the weapons?

Does anyone know what happened to the nuclear weapons on board? 71.212.145.97 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

6th or 7th fleet?

Cited sources say, that mines were laid down against US 7th fleet, but 7th fleet is a pacific one, while 6th fleet stays in mediterranean sea. Is there anyone to confirm, that: in the 70's 7th fleet was always in the pacific theater, or that it is impossible that mines in this particualr place could be targeted at 7th fleet (for example in a scenario of 7th fleet reinforcements for 6th fleet during potential european conflict). sorry for my english, i hope you understand this :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.240.124 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 December 2006

Fake mines

All the story about mines in Neaples is a fake. See http://www.slate.com/id/2155274. 81.39.245.248 (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And more importantly, was being stated here as if it was a fact. Having checked the sources I see a few gullible journos repeating the fantasies of one individual to generate sensationalist headlines. It totally fails WP:VERIFY

Added it as a note that it is a highly contested allegation from a single source may be acceptable, but I'm not going to waste my time doing that. EasyTarget (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have removed this entire section (or actually a paragraph) twice now. I have put it back in its original form for the reasons already stated by me.

This is without doubt the most FAMOUS of things purported to have been done by K-8, & oft repeated, because of the shock factor.

The allegation that K-8 was planting mines rises to an almost incredible level of intrigue. This potential situation has already sparked a lot of debate in the submarine community and in political science circles. It may be the ranting of a mad man, but plenty of mad men (and their ideas) have entire 100 KB articles on WP for the simple reason that the person/topic is notable. The allegation has people trying to vet it one way or the other. I propose you case aspersions on the allegation in the article's main body rather than keep removing it and complaining here. If the article is broken and somehow has some false information, then repair it next time. Put the Slate article in there to back you up.

We're talking about urban legend now. Just because it isn't true doesn't mean the legend survives. These things tend to sprout legs. Look at the latest Bigfoot claimants. like Matt Whitton. I like to saw logs! (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is being removed because it is fantasy presented as fact, and I am not going to waste my time with nonsense. If this is so important to you, then you do the work. Insert it in a acceptable format, ie as something claimed by a single, highly unreliable, source and include the links to the many people saying 'This is nonsense' and I'll even help improve it. But in it's current form it is unencyclopedic. EasyTarget (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bay of Biscay

The page for the Bay of Biscay lists the bay's maximum depth as 2798 meters, which is considerably less than the 4680 meters that this page says K-8 is resting under. How did this discrepancy get included in the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.150.27 (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

The page states varying numbers of casualties with no citations. 52, 73 and all hands are each stated. 82.44.121.1 (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)