Jump to content

Talk:USS Cole (DDG-67)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

To Publius, why would that not be an assassination? JidGom 00:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why is there a "hooyah!" at the end of this article??

Keep an eye on this page, as it has had several vandalism incidents in the last week or so... SefTarbell 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Al Manar as a source?

"On 28 February 2008, the Cole was sent to take station off Lebanon's coast, the first of an anticipated three-ship flotilla. "The United States believes a show of support is important for regional stability. We are very concerned about the situation in Lebanon. It has dragged on very long," said a top US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity signaling 'impatience' with Syria. [6]" -- Sourced from Al Manar. Is that really a credible source? --24.188.132.64 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Neal?

17 people died aboard the Cole, and someone has the gall to post some paragraph about some wrestler? BTW, that same paragraph appears on the wrestler's own page, verbatim. It doesn't seem necessary here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.65.226 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on USS Cole (DDG-67). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Cole (DDG-67). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

5" = 130mm?

I think it should read 127 mm but I don't know how to edit this. BrianAlex (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/54_caliber_Mark_42_gun — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAlex (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

2000 bombing attack

@SharabSalam: You are trying to argue that this suicide bomb attack, by al-Qaeda ( that killed 17 sailors), wasn't a "terrorist" attack? What would you call it? - wolf 22:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I am saying that we can't just call it terrorist attack without having reliable sources that call it a terrorist attack. The editor didn't leave any edit summary and it seemed like WP:SYNTH . Anyway, I have found reliable sources that strangely call it terrorist attack although the targets were not innocent civilians but military targets but it doesn't matter.. In any case, we say what RS sources say. Have a nice day.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: Well, as I asked you above; "what would you call it?". If not a "terrorist attack", then how would you characterize this incident? Thank you - wolf 14:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: Are you asking for my opinion? We don't characterize based on our opinions. a similar discussion happened in NZ attack where we used what RSs sources say and we had a lot of discussion about this (terrorist/attack) dispute. We didn't characterize as a terrorist attack based on our opinion. Addition of a terrorist/terrorism without writing an edit summary is disruptive edit. If you asked about my opinion I would think twice before call it a terrorist attack because no civilians were targeted but a military target but I wouldn't put what I think into the article but what RSs say. Not sure why you reverted my copyediting edit in this article, would you please explain why you reverted it? SharabSalam (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam:Thank you for the reply. While you keep... reminding me that content should always be supprted by reliable sources, I believe you already know that I'm well aware of that. The simple fact is, our opinions, our point of views, and even our biases will always have some impact on our edits. It's the very reason why we have so many policies and guidelines regarding that and it is also the reason why we have talk pages, and notice boards, with so many discussions, and disputes, over what content should go into an article and how it should be written.

This is why I asked you what you would consider this incident to be characterized as, if not a "terrorist attack". In this edit, where you changed "terrorist attack" to simply "an attack", you did so with the edit summary; " Unsourced, not every attack on American soldiers is a terrorist attack". The part about it being "unsoruced" was factually incorrect, but the rest was basically your opinion. And I could cite all kinds of edits, by all kinds of editors, that are based on opinions, but that is not the point. I agree with you that content should be neutral and supported, so most of this is all rather moot. I had asked you a rather simple and straight-forward question; if not a "terrorist attack", what would you characterize this incident as? Please clarify your edit summary, in regards to this incident. That's all I am asking for. Thanks again - wolf 16:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: you are clearly wasting my and your time with this timesinking discussion about my opinion which I don't pleasantly discuss even in real life. Anyway, I have already agreed with the characterization of terrorist attack. I said this to justify reverting the additional terrorist label of what seemed to me as WP:SYNTH unsoourced, not every attack on American soldiers is a terrorist attack this is basically a common sense not an opinion because there is a huge amount of possibilities that an attack on US soldiers/troops would not be considered as terrorist attack but an attack on foreign colonizers/invaders etc. If you think that ALL attacks on US troops are, should be considered as, terrorist attacks then this is obviously a biased opinion, why? Because it's illogical and fantasy. what would I characterize it?btw I have already answered this question If it's not a terrorist attack then it's simply an attack on U.S navy in Yemen as it was characterized in the stable revision. Putting terrorist/terrorism in the infobox without an explanation is disruptive (for obvious reasons). BTW, what are the justifications of your latest revert of my last edit in the article? --SharabSalam (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Whoa... hey now. There is no need to get all crusty and bent out of shape. This discussion started with your edit. I was (and still am) simply seeking clarification of that edit, and I think I've been quite amiable about it. As this is about editing that has already affected this article, and possibly others, then this certainly isn't a "waste of time" or a "timesink", because this is precisely what these talk pages are for.

Now, while it's unfortunate that you can't "pleasantly discuss" [this] "in real life", I will ask that you try to remain collegial here. With that said, I never claimed that "ALL attacks on US troops are, should be considered as, terrorist attacks". I haven't made any claims or posted any opinions here... I just asked you about yours. Because of your edit. And based on your comments here. Do you believe the attack was to repel "foreign colonizers/invaders"...? Or any other of the "huge amount of possibilities that an attack on US soldiers/troops would not be considered as terrorist attack"...? Well if not, then... what?

I see that you "have already agreed with the characterization of terrorist attack", but I am asking you how you would characterize this attack. Even with your latest comments, while you agree that the sources characterize it as a "terrorist attack", it appears that you don't agree with that. And that's perfectly within your rights. I am just curious as to what you view it as then. I'm not looking for a debate. I'm not going to boldly exclaim "you're wrong!" and try to argue with you. I just wanted to know your opinion. That's it. That's all. Thank you again, for your responses. - wolf 18:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Well tbh I have answered this your question 2 times and this is the third time. I thought that a terrorist attack would be

a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against (((civilians))) in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.[1]

Sources

  1. ^ https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/terrorist%20attack
I wouldn't characterize it as a terrorist attack because the targets were militants in a foreign land. I also have said that I only care about what RSs says not my opinion or his/her opinion. I don't know why there is a discussion about ((what would I characterize it)) and not even by the user who I reverted. Finally and for the last time, I am asking this question which you have not replied to: what is the reason for your revert of my latest edit in this article?--SharabSalam (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: At the risk of this becoming increasingly circular, I'm afraid I have to say that, 'no'... you have not answered the question I have asked you. To be clear, I asked you what you would characterize the attack on USS Cole as. You have told me that you are (begrudgingly, it seems) in agreement with the definition as supported by RS. And you have told me what think the attack wasn't. But, you have thus far not answered the question, that being what you think the attack was. Now, you could finally put this to rest, and say something like; "I don't think this was a terrorist attack. In my opinion, I believe this incident was actually a...".
IOW, tell me what you think it was. That would answer my question.

Speaking of answering questions, you asked why I reverted your last edit, where you put "quotation marks" around the term; "Iranian-backed Houthi rebels". This was basically an unexplained edit, with only "ce" as an edit summary (presumably for "copy edit"). But based on some of our previous discussions, it seems that you added those quote marks to make a WP:POINT. To answer your question; I reverted based on WP:QUOTE.

As I said above, I'm not looking to shoot you down. When I see people edit subjects of interest to me, that may hold different interpretations than I, or other editors do, I think it's worth having a discussion with then to see what we can learn. I think we're different people people with different backgrounds and different points of view on matters of military history and geo-politics, among other things, and I think understanding other people's perspectives on some of these topics can be of a benefit. I hope you agree, and again, thank you for your continued replies. - wolf 03:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: oh what a relief you have finally replied to my question. So the claim that Houthis are Iranian backed is an allegation that is even denied by Iran and Houthis see the next paragraph also see the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen#Allegations of Iranian involvement and between me and you it's BS because I am from Yemen and I know this. We don't make Wiki voice be biased towards one POV. We use quotation as this one sided quote and should not be the Wikipedia neutral side. Not using quotation marks there would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE. One notice about your revert is that you didn't explain it in the edit summary which somehow was not cool. --SharabSalam (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: "oh what a relief you have finally replied to my question" ...and yet, you still have not answered mine. So what's up with that?

That aside, we've been over this whole "Iranian-Houthi-connection" discussion before, and I thought I had ably guided you towards the options that are available to you to address your concerns. Hint: putting the term Iranian-backed-Houthi-rebels into quotes was not one of those options. You are clearly POV-editing here. Your edit is tantamount to sarcastic air-quotes. You know, like when a co-worker arrives late with a car-trouble excuse and you go to your boss and say with a sardonic sneer; "Riiiight... car trouble", while rolling your eyes and doing the air-quote gesture with your fingers (demo). You would be doing that to create doubt and ensure that your boss knows that you believe said car-trouble excuse is bullshit.

Your edit was no different. You were using the quotes to debunk the Iranian-Houthi-connection as "BS" (as you yourself indicated just above). That is pointy, POV-editing, and since this is repeat behaviour on your part, it could also be considered tendentious editing as well. So, again, that term is clearly supported by a reliable source. While that source happens to be Fox News, and you made your opinion of that media outlet quite clear, to which I advised you, the RSN is → that way. Have you taken your issues with Fox News there? (No? How... odd.)

Ok then, have you have you acted on the other solution I suggested to you? That of you finding reliable sources that clearly dispute any connection between Iran and the Houthi terrorists that attacked US Naval ships off of Yemen, and added those sources to the article, in the appropriate section, with neutral, encyclopaedic prose, to act as a counter-balance to properly sourced content that you don't like? (That would again be 'no'? I guess it's easier to just add figurative air-quotes, to create doubt about properly cited Wikipedia content, with Wikipedia's own voice. In short, to let readers know that you (and WP) believe said content is bullshit. And you really wonder why you were reverted?

But, then you go on to complain that; "One notice about your revert is that you didn't explain it in the edit summary which somehow was not cool." Really? I think my edit summary was just as thoroughly informative as yours. I could day that you ignoring sound advice, disrupting articles, violating guidelines, dishing our purely hypocritical criticism is "not cool", but I won't. What I will say is that you have, again, refused to answer my one simple question, even though I have not only answered yours, but took the time and effort to try and help you. That, my friend, is not cool. - wolf 16:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all, please note that not everyone has time to read this rhetorical rambling (above 3000 bytes lol) if you could only stay on topic. Thanks. secondly you have called Houthis/Houthi movement terrorist? Which one do you mean? because I am from the Houthi tribe and this would be a personal attack. Also the the Houthi movement is not even considered as a terrorist group except by Saudi and UAE which gets US support to support terrorist groups like AlQaeda. lol even the US don't say that they are terrorists. and this basically shows how little are the information you have about the subject which we are talking about about and who I am dealing with in this discussion. I have linked some articles in Wikipedia to help you understand the subject we are talking about. here some qoutes from [[Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen.

Accordingel Horton, an expert on Yemeni affairs, the notion that the Houthis are an Iranian proxy is "nonsense".

please if you asked me one more time about the question that I have already answered which is about my opinion I will be answering your question in Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. We can have RfC or 3O if we have got to an impass but trust me it's always better solve this problem quickly as I don't have much time for this and it would be great if you gathered some informations about this subject before writing the next comment--SharabSalam (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
First off, have you heard the expression "it takes two to tango"...? You have posted just as many comments here as I have, so you clearly have plenty of time. (and you've read. every. single. word. of each and every comment I've posted here. Who do you think you're fooling with that nonsense?) And it's not as if your comments are brief. The only real difference is that I've added more links and diffs to support what I say. Conversely, it appears you'd rather be rude and hostile than have a collegial discussion anyway.

This started because of an improper edit you made. I asked you a basic, straight-forward question, (to clarify your edit summary, btw) which you still haven't answered. Now, you could've just said "I'd rather not answer that"... but you didn't. Instead, you keep going on and on (and on) about anything but what I'd asked you, while claiming you'd already answered. (and you say I'm "off topic"...lol) This is basically your show, I'm just watching to see what you'll post next... - wolf 02:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I told you that this is an allegation; that the Houthis are Iranian backed. could you take a look into the article of Houthis or Saudi Arabian led intervention in Yemen? These are basically allegations that both sides have denied and they aren't proven by any experts who have call the allegations nonsense and even US intelligence said that Iran has actually tried to stop Houthis from entering Sana'a and Iran actually support the Hadi government but not the Saudi Arabian led intervention. Saudi Arabia and the Arab states use this as to justify their intervention in Yemen hence they even accuse North Korea of supporting Houthis should we say north Korean backed using wiki voice if a Saudi/American official said north Korean backed?. They even accuse Qatar of being supported by Iran which is a complete nonsense. Yet we use allegedly supported by Iran and we don't give the Wikipedia voice for this allegation. I was trying to make it clear that the US official is the one who said "Iranian backed" not Wikipedia
your comment has 1 diff and it's 5 paragraphs. It is also full of unnecessary blah blah that could be said in a brief way. Although my comments are written in poor English they exactly about the subject.
The 2000 bombing attack is different from Houthi attack on the UAE and Saudi USS Cole. So should we start a new section in the talk page?!--SharabSalam (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Um... what? You are literally babbling on and on now about things that are wildly off-topic and have nothing to do with that was the genesis of this discussion. You are making utterly false claims and again choosing to be rude and hostile instead polite and collegial. You can't blame all that on poor English skills. It seems you want to argue for the sake of arguing and are trying to inject varying geo-political issues here, whether they are factual or otherwise, to prolong this.

I had a question. You had a question. I answered yours. You have clearly chosen to not answer mine. That's fine, like I said, that is totally your right to do so. But I really have no interest in getting drawn into a debate about matters that have nothing to do with this article. ("Korea"...? wtf?) Have a nice day. - wolf 19:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

(break)

@Thewolfchild: You have not replied to my argument. I have asked an admin about this issue and he/she replied that if it's a direct quote from the source then it should be between quotations. I am not rude with you. I am basically saying facts. We are not having a real debate here. It's like if you wait for me to say something and then reply with completely unproductive, ad hominem and strawmanned comments.-- (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharabSalam (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow... I'm at loss to understand how you can make such claims and accusations, when the complate opposite of what you've said is right here in black and white. And now you've gone forum shopping and basically lied to an admin. I have both commented there on his tp and invited him to comment here. But other than that, I really don't have anything else to say to you. You've taken this discussion, (that started as a simple question, that you still haven't answered, btw) and turned it into a farsical trainwreck.

Seek. strife. elsewhere. - wolf 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really to be drawn in to this dispute, as I will be off wiki for about a month. Looking at it quickly there needs to be some indication that we are quoting from the source and not trying to make up something to fit a particular point of view. So I suggest using the full quote from the source in place of the existing text that paraphrases the source and so avoids the problem raised by SharabSalam of people thinking it is Wikipedia voice.

On 3 February 2017, a U.S. defense official told Fox News that "The Navy sent the USS Cole to the Gulf of Aden following an attack earlier this week [30 January] on a Saudi warship off Yemen by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels."

I have put the date in to the quote to clarify. Keith D (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Keith D: I'm good with that (its basically why I posted the quote to your talk) Thanks for putting a solution in place, it will be good to finally put that issue to rest. Cheers - wolf 20:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I am also good with that. It's much better than my edit and it's current form. Since Thewolfchild agreed with your edit it sounds like consensus so I will fix it. For the terrorist/terrorism I will start a discussion when I am free about this issue. Whether the attack is classified as a terrorist attack or a suicide attack etc. @Thewolfchild: you keep saying I didn't answer your question which is what would I call this attack. I have answered this question repeatedly in this discussion I don't think it's a terrorist attack because I think a terrorist attack is an attack that target civilians not military.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Cole_(DDG-67)/Archive_1&oldid=987416289"