Talk:USS Liberty incident

Survivors of The USS Liberty dispute Naval investigation

BBC has produced an alternative story to what really happened in regards to the Israei attack on The USS Liberty. "USS Liberty:Dead in the Water" 2002 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOH1XMAwZA Along with the BBC the vertrans of The USS Liberty has a website dedicated to the events that took place on that fateful day. http://www.gtr5.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoconnor16 (talk • contribs)

Is the equivocal definition of "deliberate" a problem that could use some clarification?

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)

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)

There was no abandon ship order

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2024

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)

 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)

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 "The Raven" article: "Poe, however, claimed the poem was a combination of octameter acatalectic, heptameter catalectic, and tetrameter catalectic."

From "Ku Klux Klan" article: "A 2016 report by the Anti-Defamation League claims an estimate of just over 30 active Klan groups existing in the United States"

From "Soviet Union" article: "A 1986 study published in the American Journal of Public Health claimed that, citing World Bank data, the Soviet model provided a better quality of life and human development than market economies at the same level of economic development in most cases."

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."

So much for that excuse. Jester6482 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

...which is why we reference our style guidelines rather than other articles. VQuakr (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Great defense for the inconsistency. Jester6482 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)