Talk:USS Peleliu

Averting a potential edit war
After adding the new bit about Reprieve's allegations, I noticed that we've got a nascent edit war here. I thought it best to explain my own reasoning why I think this is worth including on this page.

The Peleliu has previously been in the news as a place where War on Terrorism detentions have taken place, in regards to Australia-related bits of it. This has occurred twice before -- note the two other incidents that were in the article already. Reprieve have released their report for public view, and say that they've they have a solid basis in research for their allegation. The US Navy, as they should quite properly do if they are being accused incorrectly, have denied that anything untoward has happened on board ship. A more specific quote from both sides is available in the newspaper article to which a reference has been added in the Wikipedia article.

It's my opinion that this is sufficiently newsworthy, and that Reprieve's allegations are not prima facie ridiculous. People will be coming here to check out the ship based on the news, and in the longer run anyone looking to learn about topics such as the role of extraordinary rendition in the fight against terrorism will likely run across Peleliu's name and may be interested to follow up on why these allegations have been made. A reference to those allegations, regardless of truth or falsity, needs to be made so that people can follow up on them if all they know about from elsewhere is a reference to the USS Peleliu itself and that's what they punch into the search box on Wikipedia's main page.

I feel sufficiently strongly about this that I'd like to put the issue to an admin's arbitration ASAP if someone disagrees with me equally strongly.

(Incidentally, I realize that there are some credibility issues on my part since I refuse to sign in while working on this edit and so this is all signed by an IP address. I'm willing to reveal my Wikipedia identity to an admin investigating this, however; I've got a multi-year history of content addition to the encyclopedia, including substantial amount of work on several Featured Articles, and I'm willing to demonstrate that to someone who can vouch for me to anyone else interested in this discussion) -- 64.228.218.185 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The easiest way to avoid an edit war is to not add back what was removed from the article! I'm not quite sure why you feel it's necessary to do it anonymously, as the info has only been removed once this cycle, and no messages regarding this issue were left on the talk page of the editor who originally added the info. As user with "a multi-year history of content addition to the encyclopedia", I would assume you're well aware of the BOLD, revert, discuss guideline. You know well this is a controversial issue, but rather than waiting to achive concensus first to re-add the info, you hide behid an IP to re-add it. (I'm not claiming you're the original editor who added this, just how it's written; I'm not denying your the same person either.) As a measue of good faith, I'd ask that you remove the info yourself, and allow discussions to proceed to gain a consensus to add the allegations.


 * Given that 17 ships are mentioned in the allegations, I presume this is going to be added to the pages of all 17 ships as those names are released. Rather than putting nearly-identical paragraphs in every article, it seems far beter to place a link in the "See also" section to the most appropriate article discussing the issue. This should take care of those seeking to find the info by searching for the ship's name first. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. I'll revert the change as soon as I finish this comment.


 * In the particular case of the 17 ships involved, the press releases and reports in the media don't list all 17 ships -- they mention two (see http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press_us_govt_must_reveal_information_about_prison_ships_02.06.08.htm), hence the additions here and at USS Bataan. Accordingly, I consider the objection that this will lead to 17 similar statements moot. Since both ships also have a history of being mentioned in the media if not here yet for being the object of some human rights complaints (justified or not)-- this is actually reflected in the article for the USS Bataan, if not the article on the Peleliu yet -- and both are otherwise pretty non-notable, it seems obtuse to not discuss their main claims to fame in the manner of the reasonable sides of that story as presented by the Navy and by Reprieve.


 * My anonymous IP has nothing to do with the internal arrangements of Wikipedia policy; rather I have particular reasons to avoid getting myself into a situation where one disgruntled US government employee who also happens to be an WP editor sees my name and sticks me on any of number of bureaucratic lists. I cross the border to visit the States quite often, and am not an American citizen; unfortunately I feel that this makes anonymity necessary when discussing this matter. Note that I'm not so paranoid as to obfuscate my IP address should anyone find it worthwhile to investigate that. I'm merely interested in avoiding anything that could be done in the heat of the moment. If this presents a difficulty to you or anyone else who joins this discussion, again I'll reiterate my willingness to present my bona fides to any admin anyone cares to call into the matter. This is particularly true if there are worries about sock puppetry -- 64.228.218.185 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're going to be put on a US gov't hitlist based on adding current available news to a wikipedia article about a ship. I am sure there is a detention facility for Canadian Wikipedia editors somewhere near Detroit but the interrogations are done somewhere in the Caribbean.  Is someone taking themselves a bit to seriously?--Looper5920 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I love you too. Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion? -- 64.228.218.185 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Beware of the boogeyman too.--Looper5920 (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ((Correction added a few minutes later)) I was mistaken up above that the Bataan's article had previously existing discussion about human rights violations and the Peleliu 's didn't. It's actually the other way around. -- 64.228.218.185 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On your anon editing, that's understandable, and I have no problem with your expressed concern about your identity. Thanks for your good-faith actions in removing the sections. I will be posting requests for help at WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS]], the projects concerend with military ship articles. You are welcome to post at any projects you feel might be concerned with this issue. I don't anticipate that I will be the only objector, but I could be wrong! If after a week or so there have been no comments by other users, I'll remove my objections in good faith. I do think that linking to an appropriate article, new or existing, is the best option, but the versions you wrote are better than the original, and could stand as they were, minus a few details that would be in a likned article. - BillCJ (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I haven't seen any further objections to the addition. I'm going to put the allegations that it's being used as a prison ship back in, on the reasoning that this is, unfortunately, the only reason most people will have heard of the ship (IP Address signed at the end of this will probably have changed, but this is the same anonymous editor as 64.228.218.185) -- 65.92.59.107 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the reasoning above. I don't believe there is any reason to object to a mention in the body of the text of this or any other article that is suspected of being used for the clandestine extrajudicial detention of captives.


 * I am going to disagree with the prescription above for how to avoid edit wars too. The first person who has an opportunity to avoid the escalation to a an edit war is often the first person who makes a controversial excision, without explaining themselves on the talk page.  In this case that would be the respondent above.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BOLD, revert, discuss is a workable way of resolving the problem, and it suggests acting as BillCJ did. I have no particular problem with that; best to avoid saying difficult things until it's clear it's a useful addition. A few days delay adding it is no big deal if it needs to be added -- "Wikipedia is not news", etcetera. When I came here to look up the Peleliu after seeing its name in the news this morning it was early enough that I figured the change still remained to be put forward. More fool me for not remembering that Wikipedia never sleeps! -- 64.228.218.185 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We are all fallible. Everytime we choose to be bold, and make a controversial revision, rather than ask our correspondents to explain themselves, we are taking a gamble.
 * When we are bold, without bothering to discuss our concerns with other wikipedian's edits, we are gambling that we are smarter, more well-informed, more experienced, than our correspondents -- and we are needlessly risking looking like a hot-head, if we are wrong.
 * We are all human, if we act boldly first, rather than pose civil questions, we are going to experience moments where it is harder for us to back down, and acknowledge error.
 * When we are bold, rather than civil, we risk pissing off our correspondents -- even if our position is correct, acting without explanation risks pissing people off. And, assuming our position is basically correct, by forgoing civility, we risk chasing our correspondents away, before they learn why their position is wrong.  Even if they stick around, their emotions may be too engaged for them to realize they are wrong.


 * I have had numerous instances, when I exercised the discipline to ask questions first, in order to avoid inflaming my opponents -- only to be enormously relieved when it turned out that my correspondent wasn't some trumped up joe, who didn't really know what he or she was talking about, but was an actual expert, in real life, and I was the one who was misinformed. By asking questions, I saved myself the embarrassment of looking like a risk-taking show-off, I saved myself the embarrassment of having to back down.    Geo Swan (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unbiased reader here, I just wanted to point out the reason I came to this page was because of the article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights so treat that as you may 198.6.46.11 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's now a notable event
I added it first. True or not, as we're not here to report truth, it needs to be added since it's now gone notable, as the AP and other wires picked it up. Is there a valid reason to exclude adding a note about it, sourced? rootology ( T ) 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

News
This ship is in the news, because of the controversy that too much money is being spent on Obama's visit to India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.96.168 (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Peleliu. 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/20120910150114/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Working_Paper_20.pdf to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Working_Paper_20.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712091527/http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=11265 to http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=11265

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) 18:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

October 14 1985 San Francisco Fleet Week
"'On October 14 there was a private performance on-board the USS Peleliu at Pier 32 in San Francisco, during which the band performed for members of the Pacific Fleet. Organized in celebration of the US Navy's 210th anniversary, the group was piped onstage by an honor guard.' —"

Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)