This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 December 2006
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.
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)