The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
USS Liberty incident is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Jmeadors (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. ([1],[2])
Survivors of The USS Liberty dispute Naval investigation
The word "deliberate" seems to be used here as some sort of negation of "accident" or "mistake". There is a problem in that "deliberate" means, "the result of deliberation," which does not necessarily imply that the deliberations are correct; yet the word "deliberate" could be taken to mean that the end result considering all of the eventual facts was intended. There is a substantial difference between a deliberation with mistaken facts/assumptions and one with no errors.
IOW, Israel, as the result of a deliberations in an information deficit due to the fog of war, came to the mistaken conclusion that the USS Liberty was a hostile Egyptian ship and as a result made the positive decision to attack it, as they were at war with Egypt. This is not the same as having positively identified it as an American vessel and positively decided to attack the United States -- a nation they were not at war with.
That something was done after deliberation does not mean that the results are intended, since deliberation is just the process of thinking things over and does not mean you know everything, or even anything at all. Something can be done after deliberation which is still a mistake/unintended/an accident of information at hand. 2601:19E:4280:5853:2C01:795B:F90E:4D52 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All 11 times we use the word "deliberate" in the article prose, it is as part of a direct or indirect, attributed quote. MW also includes the relevant definition: characterized by awareness of the consequences. In context "done after deliberation" is not the definition being used here, and even it was, we would not use our own original synthesis as editors to arrive at a conclusion different than those attributed to relevant sources. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current page says "Israeli ships' actions after the torpedo hit: Officers and men of Liberty say that after the torpedo attack and the abandon ship order". The citation only claims that there was an order to "prepare to abandon ship". 2603:3023:106:1800:C210:7C2E:83FF:6ECE (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Make the language of this article, at least the first few paragraphs where most viewers will skim, more neutral. "Israel apologized, saying they thought it was an Egyptian ship" > "Israel issued an apology, claiming they thought it was an Egyptian ship" etc. The facts are not clear cut enough to present the article the biased way it is being presented now. Jester6482 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright that is pretty selective reasoning, anybody can do "ctrl-F" on any wikipedia page and see that in other scenarios, there is no such concern to avoid using the word "claim" when it fits the reality of what happened.
From "French Revolution" article: "Historian Reynald Secher claims that as many as 117,000 died between 1793 and 1796. Although those numbers have been challenged"
From "Henry Ford" article: "Ford "insisted that war was the product of greedy financiers who sought profit in human destruction". In 1939, he went so far as to claim that the torpedoing of U.S. merchant ships by German submarines was the result of conspiratorial activities undertaken by financier war-makers."
From "Smedley Butler" article: "Butler also claimed that the plotters of the alleged coup intended on using Butler, at the head of a group of veterans, to place the federal government under arrest."
This is a volunteer-created project; it is not and never will be perfect. Therefore, pointing out examples from other articles that appear at odds with the style guide is a poor argument for not following the style guide. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a famously fallacious argument here, so yeah in general don't expect it to get much traction. VQuakr (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be about whether other articles exist at all. All I did was check whether or not articles typically followed the style guide you were enforcing. No point in referencing the style guide at all if we can just say "someone else wrote that article, so we don't have to enforce the style guide there" when it's convenient, and this is an edit request, not a deletion discussion right? But whatever you say I will leave this article alone. Jester6482 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Not done Wikipedia tries to avoid using the word "claim" because it creates an implication that we're taking a side in the dispute and risks violating the neutral point of view policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
