All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
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 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.
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.
And one of these isn't even an external link but a book. I can't see how this meets WP:EL and despite the cleanup tag it isn't fixed. I've raised this at WP:ELN. I haven't checked but some of the ELs may be sources, in which case they don't belong in the EL section. I don't plan to edit the article, just raising the issue. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, the article exceeds EL policy. Most, if not all, of the in-body ELs should be converted to footnotes where ELs are allowed and commonly used. Anybody up for doing the conversion?Ken (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw the notice on the ELN. I agree. Most of these violate WP:ELNO #1. Dividing websites into "Sources saying attack was a mistake" and "Sources saying attack was deliberate" suggests to me that these sites are biased to the point that they shouldn't be included. - Location (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not clear that a bias one way or the other is problematic. Virtually every source for this article is biased to some extent -- including primary sources like the official investigations.Ken (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It occurs to me: it was an attack, not just an incident. There was violence. (An "incident" is what I had at the checkout today. I had forgotten my bag!). -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a matter of context and relative magnitude. The attack on Pearl Harbor is seldom referred to as an incident. But the relatively minor attack on USS Panay is often referred to as the USS Panay incident. Obviously, both events involved an attack, but their relative magnitude was very different -- as indicated by the usage of the noun "attack" v/s "incident" in their description. AFAIK, there is no strict rule for determining which noun to use, but Wiki is fairly consistent in usage.Ken (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's an attack even if it was presented as an incident. We know now it was a planned attack. --Gagarine (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that we should use the term "attack" rather than "incident." MichaelKovich (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
After I did this, No More Mr Nice Guy argued this. However, a statement being sourced does not say it is in the right place. Also, it is not a reply to my edit + es, as if it was not read by No_More.
I propose to have it removed for reasons already noted. -DePiep (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I read your es, but did not understand what you were trying to say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You should have asked then. Anyway, since your reinstalling is not relevant for reason described here (and not objected by you), it should go. Next, I'll explain: the footnote was a bullet, and in the infobox you suggest it was the asterisk that points to the note. Well, nowhere in typography that is the case. On top of this, that infobox has space for a general note, it is not fit to be used as a footnote. So I'll remove it, and refer to my original removal es for actual reason. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The footnote was initially applied as an attempt to explain the use of "Participants" instead of "Belligerents" for the involved two parties. In other words, the attacker and attackee were not belligerents; i.e., not at war with each other or initiating a war with each other. Thus, they were classified as being participants. Also, a footnote is a type of note; thus, since the "notes" parameter is non-specific and not limited as to type of note, I see no reason to disallow this usage.Ken (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I modified the text format of the footnote mark from "*" to "[*]", in both the "Participants" and "notes" parameters, to clarify the footnote nature of the "notes" parameter's text.Ken (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The formatting is only a sideremark, stemming from the different typographic symbol. That is not 'allowed' in goor writing. But the original reason for deletion is, as noted in my OP here and in : no need to give afterward "why" thoughts about who were the belligerents. The note does not belong there. -DePiep (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. As I said, the footnote was originally added (by me) in an effort to explain the use of "Participants" instead of "Belligerents" for describing the involved two parties. There was much discussion about whether or not the parties were "Belligerents" -- as defined in a dictionary. I believe you were the only one who did not want them labeled as "Participants". Your position was that it did not connote the intensity or war-like nature of the attack. Anyway, I have no objection to removing the footnote and footnote marks, as long as "Participants" remains as the label for the two involved parties.Ken (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I remember that discussion but not the details (a similar point is with the downplaying "attack" into "incident"). Anyway, we agree to remove the note because it does not belong there. Please go ahead. -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I object to removing it. I think it's informative and adds to the infobox. People looking at the article at a glance get a better picture of the incident. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion is not the conclusion of this talk. I reverted your edit. Do you want to editwar or argue? -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems you want to edit war. This is being discussed, and I see no consensus for your removal . For the record, I think NMMNG's version is more informative, and better, and support the inclusion. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
re "It seems you want to edit war": bad faith by an admin. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not an admin, and there's no bad faith involved- I am observing that you have reverted this at least 3 or 4 times already, which is indicative of an edit war. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Bad Dryer: your "It seems .." is bad faith. Also, you reverted and now you come talking here? No way. You are behaving double-faced. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not bad faith at all - it is an observation of your behavior - you have repeatedly removed the same information from the article, over the objection of several editors, and without consensus for you actions on the talk page. What would you call this if not edit warring? Bad Dryer (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Both you and NMMNG in this thread pose POV positions. eg your "more informative, and better" opinion does not explain why it should be in a non-related infobox section that has a different topic & title. Then counting votes for a POV does not convince. NMMNG did not even respond to this core error. -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
External links content to be put into article prose?
Conflicting comments rekindle Liberty dispute, Marine Corps Times, 26 June 2002, by Bryant Jordan
The Moorer Report. Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government