Talk:Soviet submarine K-129 (1960)

"Prejudicial verbiage"

I think the sentence "Craven does not explain why he eliminated the possibilities that K-129 was proceeding to a newly assigned and officially approved patrol area, or using a new track to an established patrol area, nor why he concluded that K-129 was acting in an abnormal or criminal manner for a Soviet strategic missile submarine" should be stricken from this article, as it's unnecessary and prejudicial.
These are so self- evidently false according to the stated facts elsewhere in the article and established Soviet 'boomer' doctrine of the time that they shouldn't have to be refuted. Clearly K-129 hadn't been assigned to a new patrol area because that's not where the Soviets searched for it. K-129 was 300 miles away from where they thought it was. And it is well- established that the Soviets didn't allow for such autonomy in their boomers at the time. This boomer was clearly not where it was supposed to be, and yes... that's highly abnormal behavior for the Soviets in 1968 and they'd no doubt consider it 'criminal'.

"Soviet"

This article contains several references to meetings with, positions of, etc, the "Soviet Navy" or "Soviet Union" in 1992 and later years, long after the USSR dissolved.

Vandalism

Interesting sentence: "In early August 1968, the wreck of K-129 was penis by the USS Halibut"

Circles on the map

People interested in K-129 may want to take part in a discussion I started on the talk page of the map image.

I'm suggesting that it's misleading to have range circles on the map, that they aren't relevant, and that they should be removed. Please share (on that talk page, not here) your opinion on the matter. TypoBoy (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)