Talk:USS Pueblo (AGER-2)

Personal Testimony from USS Enterprise flight deck

A personal friend of mine was on the Enterprise at the time of the Pueblo incident. He told me that the F4 aircarft were in the air at the site of the Pueblo attack, and that the pilots were willing and able to stop the attack, but were told to stand down by the Pentagon. He also said that a request was made for volunteers to pursue the North Koreans and possibly land. All ~7500 crew members volunteered, but again they were told to stand down by the Pentagon. I would appreciate confirmation of this anecdote by other USS Enterprise crew.pechaney (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pechaney: If you are looking to add content to the article, based on the information passed to from a friend, then it falls to you to find reliable sources that support that content. You can't expect people to do your research for you. And, I mention this as 'content for the article', because if you are seeking this information for reasons other than content, you've come to the wrong place and you're post goes against the talk page guidelines here. - ^theWOLFchild 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus to split the incident part into separate article Pueblo incident . (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

---

USS Pueblo (AGER-2) → Pueblo incident – While the ship itself might be notable, the vast majority of this article is taken up by discussion of the Pueblo incident and it should be renamed to match the article content. Compare USS Liberty incident, Mayaguez incident. (t · c) buidhe 13:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. In both those case you mention, we have articles on the ship and the incident. Why not just create a new article for the incident itself then? -- Calidum 14:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for reason above. The ship has history entirely separate from the incident and even Navy operation. The examples given to support a move argue against such a move. Both use the very common "Main article" link pointing to a sub topic of importance and worthy in its own right developed in another article. In both cases cited there is an abbreviated section on the incident in the ship article pointing to another article focused on the incident. That is a solution I would support. Palmeira (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - you are missing the fact that we still have USS Liberty (AGTR-5) and SS Mayaguez as standalone articles. If you want to do anything, split off the Pueblo incident into its own article and summarize it here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the article is about ship, while the incident is notable, a separate article about the incident is more appropriate than renaming the ship article itself.Crook1 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - if there are deficiencies in the article that mean the incident dominates, then the solution is to expand other parts of the article and/or split the incident off into its own article. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. It isn't clear that the ship is independently notable and any article on the subject would inevitably be a WP:CFORK of an article on the incident. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • CFORK has absolutely nothing to do with this situation at all; no one is suggesting we split the article so the US POV can be presented here and the North Korean POV presented in the Pueblo incident article, which is actually what CFORK prohibits. You seem to be conflating tendentious article splits with the general practice of writing articles in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - article is about ship - incident should have its own page, per Parsecboy, Palmeira, etc. Llammakey (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Regardless of whether the ship is notable, I think it's clear that readers would be best served with a single article on the incident—which w/could have a section about the ship's pre-history. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: That would be one solution; however, in my opinion, the "incident article" would be cluttered by ship details unless we just stripped the usual ship information out. Mayaguez itself is a fair example with FS-344/Pueblo actually having more data. In my opinion that would distract from the incident details. We have plenty of brief ship articles with fairly little "operational history" so the ship page would not be unusual (Not now getting into whether all those for a "type" shouldn't go into expanded lists such as the List of Empire ships (A) — something I've long urged for these FS types in general.) As for the WP:CFORK issue, I took a look there and a fork in this case could meet at least two of the "acceptable" criteria. The ship itself meets "notability" long established and argued here for ships of a certain size and national ownership. As a note, I have extensive original research into the FS vessels, including National Archives, and due to this one's home waters training mission there will not be any "exotic" service history as some serving in SWAPA and Central Pacific had. Palmeira (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – and move bulk of incident content to incident's own page, per Calidum, Palmeria, et al. sbb (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with others that the incident should be separate article (with summary here), following precedents of USS Liberty (AGTR-5) and SS Mayaguez; that seems consistent with WP:SPINOFF re undue weight.Davidships (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - as nearly everyone else has said a separate article should be created for the incident Lyndaship (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Split per the nominator, this article is unbalanced. Remove the Pueblo incident as a separate article, since otherwise, this should not be a ship article with ship information, as it is focused on the incident. There should only be a short summary of the incident in a ship article, and not an article sized section on the incident. -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you "Oppose" as the nominator proposed a move of the entire article, a rename, and not a split as the "Oppose" group contends. Palmeira (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The article can be moved first as the article is mostly about the incident, so the edit history should therefore remain with the incident article. Splitting of the ship from the incident article can happen after the move. Thus, it is not an oppose, it is also a "Move". That should clarify matters. It should move first for edit history reasons. -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Move the bulk (incident) then put the ship specific part as text at the left over redirect with current title. Palmeira (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False flag operation?

Should this article get category:False flag operations? --77.2.108.109 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As it is now, no... there is no mention of the incident being a false flag operation. - wolf 17:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect service award?

This ship is listed as having received the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, defined as such:

The medal recognizes those military service members who have supported operations to counter terrorism in the War on Terror from 11 September 2001, to a date yet to be determined.

Although this ship is still listed as commissioned today, it seems unlikely that it would receive the award as it's been a museum piece for North Korea for decades now. Anyone have a source to support this ship receiving this medal? --Data Engineer (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As you said, the ship is still actively commissioned, just like any other current USN warship, so why wouldn't she receive the same awards as other ships? That said, I didn't add the award, you could try contacting the editor that did and asking them about it. - wolf 15:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, and I'd be happy to be wrong so long as the right answer is sourced. I think this revision was the relevant one, made by an IP user. Possibly original research, as I'm not seeing any mention of the GWOTSM medal in this article's references. The ultimate authority is probably https://awards.navy.mil. Unfortunately, the search function for unit awards does not appear to be working as I query from the public internet. I've asked their IT team for help and will report back. Data Engineer (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Commissioned

The article says is is the second oldest ship in commission, after USS Constitution. But isn’t the Arizona still in commission? I think it was built before the Pueblo. 31.94.73.86 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"USS Pueblo (AGER-2" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect USS Pueblo (AGER-2 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § USS Pueblo (AGER-2 until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)