Talk:Chinese submarine 361

Untitled
Regarding my edit of the last paragraph of the "Mystery" section: the text was very difficult to understand since it was not written in proper English. However, while I tried to make it make more sense, I still question the validity of the claim in the first place: a diesel engine that is sucking out oxygen is producing a huge amount more gas volume than it is using as it converts liquid fuel into gas (which is how internal combustion engines work). I assume those resulting gasses are vented outside, but is that 100% correct? Does the submarine's ambient air pressure rise, lower or stay the same when running the engines? Would running the engines when not snorkelling or on the surface lower the atmospheric pressure? --Fitzhugh 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the picture on the article
The sail configuration of the picture in the article is that of a Romeo class not a Ming SS as the caption states. 12.187.232.194 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese submarine 361. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028152251/http://taiwansecurity.org/WP/2003/WP-050303.htm to http://taiwansecurity.org/WP/2003/WP-050303.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hindsight bias in Wikipedia articles?
Recently I came across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I wondered whether this bias might also be present in this Wikipedia article... According to the hindsight bias, in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, predictable and/or inevitable an event was, and obviously a study has even found it in Wikipedia articles on accidents/catastrophes: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 So I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, – and whether the disaster is presented as more predictable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against its occurrence? Apparently, the hindsight bias occurs because of a retrospective focus on information that spoke FOR the event while ignoring (or not taking seriously) information that would have argued for another outcome, which then, of course, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeability... This is why I wondered whether this article might also be affected by hindsight bias and should thus be checked again for this? --2A02:810D:1300:38E5:7D92:C419:92B9:F691 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Page move
This page was moved without discussion on 20 April to "Chinese submarine Changcheng 361"; I’ve moved it back as there seems to be very little evidence of the name "Changcheng" either as an individual or as a class name. None of the sources use it, nor does the Chinese WP article. So So I have tagged that as dubious (see below), as well. I trust everyone is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dubious claim
The lead sentence here states this vessel is "named The Great Wall #61 (长城61号)", without any evidence to back it up. The information was added to the lead sentence in November 2008 with this edit, and has sat here unreferenced and making little sense (is the number 61 or 361?) ever since. None of the sources use it, and nor does the Chinese WP article. So I have tagged that as dubious. If it cannot be substantiated I suggest it's about time it was deleted. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)