Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 4

Torpedo hole size conflict
In the "air and sea attack" section it says: "One [torpedo] hit Liberty on the starboard side forward of the superstructure, creating a 36 X 24-foot (7.3 m) hole ..."

In the "aftermath of the attack" section it says: "Though Liberty was severely damaged, with a 50-foot (15 m) hole..."

The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry record says: "[Torpedo] Hole centered at FR 60 and extending 24 ft downward from just below second deck and longitudinally from frame 53 to frame 66 (39 feet). The hole was teardrop in shape, larger at bottom."

I'm beginning to wonder: Does anybody who posts information for this article do primary source fact-checking, or are they simply repeating hearsay or unverified secondary sources?Ken (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia generally relies on secondary sources, see WP:V, WP:OR. In this case, the Navy Court of Inquiry record is a better source, but sometimes primary sources have their own problems that require some expertise to evaluate, e.g. testimony in one hearing might be contradicted elsewhere. Keep up the good work.--agr (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement, but I'm trying to not get too wrapped up in editing this article. Nonetheless, I find it difficult to let ambiguous or erronous information on a matter that's widely read and of historical significance go unattended.Ken (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the "36x24 foot" edit a looong time ago as it originally had the the mtr size written as feet (making the hole tiny). People rarely have a good understanding of size comparison and often don't check wrong measurements. Wayne (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * At least 36x24 foot is close to the officially stated size of 39x24. My own research, based on a careful photo analysis of the hole, yielded a width a bit smaller than 39 foot; but, of course, "original research" carries no weight on Wiki.  The smaller size I found reflected the actual hole and did not include non-penetrating edges of deformation around the hole.  I guess it depends on how one defines the components of a hole.  Anyway, if anybody is interested, my analysis and findings can be viewed here: http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay4


 * Generally, I believe that whenever possible primary sources should be used for this article -- especially since abundant information exists in the primary sources that one can reference without the need to rely upon the interpretation or misinterpretation of secondary sources -- including myself.Ken (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Challenging image U123754.jpg description
See image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U123754.jpg

Part of the image's description states: "Note heel of ship in high speed (21 knot) turn. Smoke and fire damage can be seen from fires burning as result of napalm and rocket attacks."

No doubt, the wake behind Liberty appears like she was turning to port, and it's clear that light smoke can be seen. Additionally, sunlight shadows show the ship was heading northward. But beyond these visual clues in the image, I don't see anything that tells me the ship was traveling at 21 knots or that the smoke and fire damage was due to napalm and rockets.

According to findings in the U.S. Navy's Court of Inquiry (COI), the estimated speed of Liberty during the sea attack was between 15 to 17 knots, not 21 knots.

Additionally, COI testimony and findings state that fires on the port side were due to burning gas from ruptured gas storage drums, not napalm or rockets. Of course, the ruptured drums may have resulted from a napalm bomb or rocket hit, but this is not specifically stated in the COI record.Ken (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just realized that images can have their own discussion page, I'll post this on the image's discussion page. Sorry for the inadvertent posting here...Ken (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, after reading Wiki suggestions about where to post discussion for images, I'll keep the discussion here.Ken (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Israeli history says there was one napalm hit, which is information that may not have been available to the COI. But images are not the place for controversial content. Might also be worth mentioning the gun. How about changing the description to: "USS Liberty turns to evade Israeli torpedo boats attacks on 8 June 1967. Note heel of ship in a high speed turn and aft port machine gun position. Smoke and fire damage can be seen from fires burning as result of earlier air attacks."--agr (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it may be best to simply remove the second statement. If detailed description of the image's actual or apparent content is desired or need, it can be done in the text of the article.Ken (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And if it is removed from the article for some reason (We find a better one?) and someone then wants to use it? It is best to have the info there in the desc. Narson (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If the description does not go beyond what is truly claimed by the original source, then this seems like a reasonable approach. But as it stands, claims are being made in the description that are more reflective of "original research" than the primary source's limited description or claims.Ken (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone provide an original source for this image?--agr (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Likely it came from here: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-l/agtr5-k.htm
 * I noticed the description was expanded since I last visited the above web site. It now notes the appearance of fire damage and the gun mount.Ken (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We should cite that source and copy the Navy's image description verbatim. I see no need or justification to add anything more, unless there is a published reliable source that analyzes it further. "USS Liberty (AGTR-5) turns while under attack by Israeli motor torpedo boats, off the Sinai Peninsula, 8 June 1967. Note fire-damaged structure at left, with what appears to be a .50 caliber machine gun." (Note that if you click on the image you see a simpler caption that matches the original upload description; that may be what you remember.)  --agr (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the right thing to do. Yep, more likely than not I recalled the brief caption on the photo.Ken (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Challenging introduction statement about ship's distance from northern Sinai when attacked
The US Navy Count of Inquiry found the initial attack location at 31-24N, 33-30E. This places Liberty about 14 nautical miles (26km) from the nearest point of northern Sinai land, and about 22 nautical miles (41km) northwest of a central point on El Arish's shoreline. Thus, in the introduction, the opening paragraph's statement of the ship being "about 12.5 nautical miles (23 km) from the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, north of El Arish" is not supported by a key primary reference source.Ken (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I attempted to satisfy the above challenge by using the location and distance cited in the NSA History Report -- a previously cited secondary source. The description cited in the report was taken from Captain McGonagle COI testimony.  This approach involved no transformation of given and selected pairs of latitudes and longitudes into nautical miles; i.e., it avoided any possible challenges of introducing "original research".


 * I realize the NSA History Report's reliability was challenged (by me), as well as McGonagle's COI testimony about attack events' sequence. But as far as I can determine, even though McGonagle may have been confused about the sequence of events, and miscombined a few, he appears fairly consistent with other witnesses about the attributes of certain events.  Thus, I have no reason to not believe his statement about the sighted distance and bearing of the minaret of El Arish, shortly before the air attack commenced.Ken (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Key primary source challenged
Anybody reading my recent challenges, factual corrections and ideas for the article may have noticed my emphasis on the use and accurately summarized presentation of primary sources (e.g., court of inquiry testimony and directly associated reports) instead of secondary or tertiary sources. The reason being that many, if not all, secondary and tertiary sources in this matter -- regardless of the author's credentials -- can be shown to have filtered or overlooked certain information and presented interpretations or opinions that tend to favor one side or the other. Thus, to rely on any given secondary or tertiary source for accurately presenting "uncontested facts" is opening the door for many challenges, such as the ones I've made.

Having said the above, I call attention to the fact that a key primary source has been authoritatively challenged. The integrity of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry record was challenged by the lawyer who served as the court's attorney, Captain Ward Boston. Captain Boston, in a signed affidavit ( http://www.ussliberty.org/bostondeclaration.pdf ), claimed the record, as it now exists, is not the record he recalls submitting, and it was modified with various omissions and changes to testimony. Whether or not Boston's claims are true is not known; but, at least, it places a cloud of doubt over a key primary source -- one used as a reference by many others in their research and writings.

A result of "original research" regarding Boston's claims was discovery of a gross discrepancy in the COI record that suggests it was truly modified. On page 100 of the transcript, it's stated that witness LT Bennett was recalled and reminded of his oath. Bennett answered one question, not related to his job function, and then he was promptly dismissed. Later, on page 114, it's stated that LT Bennett was called as a witness, took the oath, answered many questions related to his job function, and then was dismissed. It's clear from the COI record, that testimony was recorded in chronological order. Obviously, LT Bennett's chronologically misplaced (recalled before being called) and unexpected testimony is, at least, suspicious and appears to support Boston's claim.

So, it seems that a key primary source, one upon which many well-known researchers relied, is in serious doubt. This being the case, it's not clear to me that much more than a very limited article can be presented, without traversing into the realm of reliance on questionable sources.Ken (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have to go back and review WP:Verifiability, which begins "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I would consider the conclusions of the Navy COI, the NSA Official History and the IDF history reliable secondary sources. Some might differ, but as long as we can cite where statements come from we are carrying out Wikipedia's function. We are not in a position to evaluate original testimony, whether it was recorded properly or not. I think it is ok to use such in special situations, like clarifying minor inconsistencies or just for presenting the areas where the record is unclear, but in general Wikipedia discourages the use of primary documents for just these reasons. As for Captain Boston's claims, they don't even belong in the article unless they have been published by a reliable secondary source. --agr (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then, perhaps, the issue is: What constitutes a "reliable secondary source?" I suspect that some folks view only stuff published by sources supporting the premeditated or reckless attack theory as reliable, and others view only stuff published by sources supporting the mistaken identity attack theory as reliable.  Yet others may take the middle road and attempt to mix-and-match sources to develop a synthesized presentation -- somewhat like certain parts of the article now attempts.


 * Frankly, a synthesized presentation is a close cousin to an "original research" presentation. After all, one must read and analyze the various sources and then pick-and-chose parts that seem to match and discard those that appear questionable or mismatched, and then declare the matches as uncontested fact -- that may or may not be the truth, but at least present "facts" agreed upon by the secondary sources.


 * I suspect that it will be impossible to ever present uniformly agreeable information about the attack, especially information detailing events and sequence of events. Since purportedly reliable secondary sources differ on the subject, sole reliance upon them seems futile.  Thus, the reason I suggested reliance on unadulterated primary sources, or simply limiting the article to an overview with lots of references for further research.Ken (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I've read several articles about Boston's recent death and his involvement in the USS Liberty matter. The articles appear to reliably and uniformly report the gist of his affidavit's contents, and they appear in reputable/reliable newspapers.  Based on my understanding of a reliable source, I believe these articles qualify as a reliable and verifiable source.  Thus, even though Boston's affidavit is not published per se, by a secondary source, at least Boston's views have been published.  As such, they seem to be fair game for inclusion in the article.Ken (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Use unprovoked or not, that is the question...
I noticed there is an ongoing issue about whether or not the attack should be described as "unprovoked." In my readings, I've found author's who described the attack as unprovoked (among other adjectives); but often, it's simply described as an attack. I suppose one could describe the attack as a "surprise" -- that description was used in the Clark Clifford report: "The attack was executed with complete surprise, remarkable efficiency, devastating accuracy and deeply tragic results." And, of course, to the crew the attack was a complete surprise, and IDF reports make clear that no warning or attempt to contact the ship was performed before the air attack. Thus, describing the attack as a "surprise" seems to agree with all sources, whereas "unprovoked" is questionable.Ken (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd avoid the term 'suprise' as suprise attack has connotations. If you are going that route, try 'Unexpected'? Narson (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the word "surprise" tends to connotate it was the intention of the attackers to not issue a warning or attempt to communicate before attacking. Of course, some believe this was the case, but it remains to be proven.  On the other hand, "unexpected", to some, may connotate the attacker somehow did not expect to attack.  Perhaps the best route is to simply drop the adjective and let the body of the article deal with the nature of the attack.Ken (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is certainly the route I'd go. Narson (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, others feel differently -- I see someone has once again inserted "unprovoked". It seems that this article has become a playground for folks more interested in projecting their POV than attempting to discover a fair and balanced way to present published information about the incident.  Since Wiki likes reliable and verifiable secondary sources, and quotes are without doubt a reflection of these type sources, perhaps the opening paragraph should be replaced, in part or wholly, with the following from the NSA Director's Report (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/nsareportofdirector.html ):


 * "On June 8, 1967, the Liberty, a ship of the [U.S.] Naval Security Group, found itself in the middle of the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six-Day War. Cruising 25 miles off the Gaza coast, it was attacked by Israeli [jet] fighters and torpedo boats at 2 o'clock on a clear and sunny afternoon."  This attack has become known as the USS Liberty Incident.Ken (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the use or non-use of the word "unprovoked" is the least of this article's problems.Ken (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll notice users other than myself or you reverted the edit (To once again remove unprovoked), I've now reverted the reversion of the revert to remove the edit once again. Don't feel dismayed Ken, sadly this is just how wikipedia is. Consensus will create what it is felt is the right version (In this case one without 'Unprovoked' for example) and established editors will enforce that consensus unless it changes. It is building an encyclopedia through co-operation and judicious use of whiffle bats. Narson (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It sometimes appears more like a matter of attrition than consensus; i.e., he who grows tired first and stops attempting to edit the article is the loser. For this case, it all seems a bit silly since there are several generally accepted reliable and verifiably sources that use the word "unprovoked."  Thus, its usage or non-usage appears more an issue of individual preference than what can be found in published sources.


 * On the other hand, usage of "unprovoked" is strictly from the viewpoint of the attackee. If, as the IDF claims, its attack was due to mistaken identity, then according to the IDF's version of the attack it was a provoked attack.  The screw-up was in attacking the wrong ship.  Thus, from the viewpoint of the attacker, the attack was provoked; albeit, the target was misidentified.


 * So, in keeping with the NPOV rule, I'm convinced that the correct approach is to simply use the word "attack" without any modifiers.Ken (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoever the person on the keyboard at 24.218.9.83, he/she seems more interested in playing games with the word "unprovoked" than offering serious contributions.Ken (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the NSA History Report reliable and verifiable?
From the NSA History Report, the section entitled, "Torpedo Attack": "At about 1424 hours, look-outs sighted three high-speed boats approaching the Liberty from the northeast on a relative bearing of approximately 135 degrees, at a distance of about 15 miles. The boats appeared to be in a wedge-type formation, spaced about 150 to 200 yards apart, and closing in a torpedo-launch attitude at an estimated speed of 27 to 30 knots."

Nowhere in any primary source does it say anything about "look-outs" sighting torpedo boats, at any time. This is pure fiction invented by the authors. Additionally, it's clear in McGonagle's COI testimony (one of the references used by the authors) that he recalls two different sightings for the torpedo boats. The first sighting he claimed -- the one stated in the History Report -- occurred during the latter part of the air attack, the second sighting he claimed was at about 1420, with the boats being at a distance greater than one nautical mile and much closer than the 15 miles of the first sighting.

Besides, the time, distances and speeds given in the NSA History Report simply make no sense for the torpedo boats attacking and then hitting the ship with a torpedo at 1435, as the History Report claims. In other words, if the boats were 15 miles from the ship at 1424, then they had to travel, at least, about 13 miles (nautical miles) in about 11 minutes (72 knots speed) -- much faster than the boats' top speed would allow.

Here's another problem in the NSA History Report.

The report recites McGonagle's COI testimony about sighting aircraft at 45 to 50 degrees above the horizon, about 7000 feet elevation, and about 5 to 6 miles (likely nautical miles) from ship, just before the air attack.

If you do the math (to keep things simple, use average angle of 47.5 degrees and average miles from ship 5.5 nautical miles (33,419 feet)), with the help of a right-angle calculator ( http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html ), you'll find the following:

- If the elevation was truly about 7000 feet, then the distance from the ship would have been: 6414 feet (about one nautical mile).

- If the distance from the ship was truly about 33,419 feet, then the elevation would have been: 36470 feet (about 6 nautical miles).

- For a right triangle with legs of 7000 feet and 33,419 feet, the adjacent angle would have been 78 degrees, roughly the angle a normal person standing can bend his/her head upward and back -- noticably greater than 45 (or 47.5) degrees.


 * Oops, I got the adjacent and opposite legs reversed. Let's try this again: For a right triangle with an adjacent leg of 33,419 and and opposite leg of 7,000 feet, the adjacent angle would have been 13 degrees.  This angle is a bit less than the approximate angle (15 degrees) formed when extending one's arm, making a fist with rasised thumb, and sighting fist's bottom with horizon and thumb's top over distance object -- a crude techique known to sailors that's often used to estimate sun, moon and other sky objects' elevation above horizon.Ken (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the NSA History Report, I've found no published "historian" who has addressed this grossly impossible statement, or any other self-evident, impossible or erronous statement in McGonagle's testimony -- a key primary source used by historians. It seems that historians simply and blindly repeat what they read or hear, from primary sources, with little attempt to analyze or validate (i.e., add expert opinion) the information. It tends to make one wonder about the reliablity of any conclusion they may publish; after all, they don't appear to critically evaluate their sources' information.

For me, this is "junk history" -- pure and simple. To call it reliable and verifiable is silly. Yet, apparently, there are folks who accept the NSA History Report as a reliable and verifiable secondary source, and use it as a reference source for the article.Ken (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing I have to say, and it galls me to say it, is that we can't 'do the maths' as it is, for ourselves. Historians can be wrong, they can be damn wrong, but we still have to go with what they say. We are not allowed to do the research ourselves. Now, as to the reliability of the NSA, well, it is an agency of some renknown, so likely warrants it. If you want a source reviewed, there is a noticeboard for it but I forget where. Might be linked on WP:RS. Narson (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning the reliability of NSA, as an organization, but more the reliability of the NSA historians and their history report. In other words, I view the document and the authors as the source, not the organization that employs them.


 * I understand the need to exclude "original research" from Wiki; but, on the other hand, when primary and secondary sources don't align, and there are significant differences between secondary sources, how can one untangle the mess without performing and introducing some degree of "original research" into the article? It seems that we have classic "Catch 22" situation.Ken (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't say I have an answer for you. One solution in such situations might be to present both dissenting views. Perhaps one of the chaps more versed in wikilore can tell you with more certainty how far we can use our own noggins. Narson (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Narson is right. What you need is a source that discredits the maths used in the NSA report. This can be used in the section to discount their findings. Id even go so far as to say that because 1+1=2 no matter how biased any editor is (opinion is not involved) this gives a bit of flexibility with WP:RS requirements (actually a lot of flexibility as this has come up in another article). Wayne (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it boils down to well-defining the constitution of expert v/s common understanding. It seems silly to require a secondary (or primary) source citation when one writes 1+1=2.  But if one writes 1+1=3, then a reliable and verifiable source citation must be provided.  And, according to Wiki rules, whether or not 1+1=3 is true is irrelevant, as long as the source is reliable and verifiable.  Although, the reliability of a source that claims 1+1=3 would likely be contested.


 * The trouble with this simple analogy is that one man's common understanding may be another man's mystery. Thus, the reason for needing a succinct explanation of what constitutes expert v/s common understanding, and rules governing usage.Ken (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A concrete example, for this article, is transforming the latitude and longitude of the initial attack location and the latitude and longitude of a point on the shoreline into distance. There are various reliable and commonly available methods for performing this type of transformation or calculation; e.g., Google Earth's "ruler tool" that calculates the distance between any two points on the earth's surface.  It is my view that a Wiki writer should be able to include computed distances between two points on earth, using and citing a reliable method, if the latitude and longitude of the two points can be traced to reliable and verifiable sources.  Thus, if a secondary source states a certain distance, but information within the source or other reliable sources can be transformed, by a reliable method, to show that the cited distance is incorrect, then there should be no issue with using the corrected value; i.e., it should not be classified as "original research".  After all, the computed distance is simply a transformation of data, not an opinion or discovery derived from research.  In other words, writing, "there were two apples", when the secondary source states, "there were three apples, one in the tree and one on the ground", is not research -- it's arithmetic.Ken (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A more common example is military history where it may be known that what we are being told is biased but it is the version supported by RS as the winners write it. We need another reliable source to discount it even if it's obviously in error. This is sensible because the losers may try to spin it the opposite way. Math should be outside this requirement but math can be spun by selective use to support a position. WP avoids making the distinction between selective use and possibly incorrect figures because people will argue where to draw the line and even reject a correction if it is seen to weaken their arguement. Wayne (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The results of math may be misused, but math is either performed correctly or not. For example, if I'm given the latitude and longitude of two locations, it's purely an exercise in math to compute distance.  If a correctly computed distance (i.e., a distance computed via a reliable and cited means) is stated in conjunction with source statements of latitude and longitude, then nothing from the source is being misrepresented; rather, it's simply providing the reader with extra information that's solely dependent on source data.  (This is no different than placing beside every English measurement the metric equivalent measurement, in parentheses, as now exists throughout the article.)  But, if the computed distance is used in a manner that misrepresents the original source, then it would be a case of misused math results.


 * Using my previously given example statement about apples, I see no harm in a Wiki writer quoting the full statement from the apples' source document and then writing, perhaps in parentheses, "1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples", and then saying little or no more (i.e., do not comment on the result in a personal or prejudicial manner). In this simple example, the inclusion of a reliable and verifiable math result does not misrepresent or misinterpret the original, quoted statement.  Admittedly, the reliable and verifiable math result may raises doubt in a reader's mind about the original statement's claim, but it in no way misrepresents the original, quoted statement.


 * A concrete example -- one that's not mathematical, but numbers oriented. In the U.S. Navy's COI records there is a memorandum exhibit that states the flag size numbers (sizes 9 and 7) of the ensigns flown before the air attack and during the torpedo boat attack.  Additionally, approximate physical sizes are given for the corresponding flag size numbers.  If one transforms the flag size numbers, via reliable and verifiable sources, the result will be physical sizes different than the approximate sizes.  Thus, if one writes, "the U.S. Navy claims the size-number of the flag flown before the air attack was size-9 (3.5 by 6.7 feet), approximately 5 by 8 feet, and the one flown during the torpedo boat attack was size-7 (5 by 9.5 feet), approximately 7 by 13 feet", there is absolutely no misrepresentation of information and data given in the source document.


 * Finally, consider that the entire article is fundamentally a transformation of original information. In other words, the current article is the result of various contributors attempting to accurately transform thousands of pages of information, from various supposedly reliable and verifiable sources, into a relatively few sentences and paragraphs that do not appear in the original sources, except for quoted material.  So, if presenting transformed source data is prohibited, then why not a prohibition against transformed source statements?  Especially in light of the fact that transforming worded statements is not nearly as exact as transforming data via reliable reference tables or mathematics.Ken (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Another concrete example: Within the article, the following statement appears: "...13 nautical miles (23 km)..."  It turns out that 13 nautical miles is close to 24 km, not 23 km.  So, not only is the transformation from NM to KM erroneous, there is no citation for the method used to perform the transformation.  As I've stated, I see no reason to prohibit including transformations of data (e.g., nautical miles into kilometers).  In this case, it's likely helpful for readers who are not familiar with nautical miles and use the metric system of measurement.  But, like this case, errors can be made and should be challenged.  And, of course, the method used to perform the transformation should be cited to check its reliable.  (I used the well-known formula of Kilometers = 1.852 x Nautical Miles for a result of 24.076 Kilometers.)Ken (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wordiness and redundancy in introduction...
While modifying the introduction a bit, I noticed the following: "during the Six-Day War (a conflict between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria)." A Wiki link was set for the "Six-Day War", thus, it seems wordy and redundant to provide a mini-explanation of the war, in parentheses, when a link is provided to an article that provides a fairly indepth explanation of the Six-Day War. Isn't the idea of a hyperlink to provide easy access to information that expands on a given word or phrase? If so, and I believe it is, then I see no reason for the mini-explanation, and the resultant wordiness.Ken (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Challenging statement implying 30mm cannon shells not very destructive
While in the process of correcting some blantly obvious misinformation, and adding a bit of clarity about the type of weapons involved in the attack, I came across this statement: "Rapid-firing 30mm cannons, though, are often used to keep a ship's company under cover, thus keeping the company from manning weather deck stations and doing damage control topside." Previous to my correction, "Rapid-firing 30mm cannons" was "Machine guns"; so, my change likely effects the statement.

Anyway, now that the type of weapon is correctly stated, I doubt that the rest of the statement is true. Besides, no source was cited for the statement; i.e., it appears to be "original research" or hearsay.

I have never experiened an attack by rapid-firing 30mm cannons; but while in ROTC, in college during the mid 1960's, I saw a training film of a mock enemy camp, with vehicles, being attacked from the air by two rapid-firing 30mm cannon with explosive shells. After one pass, the camp was virtually destroyed and the vehicles full of two-to-three inch holes. So, it seems to me that rapid-firing 30mm cannons are much more destructive than implied in the cited statement. My guess is that the statement was likely true for 0.50 or smaller machine guns, but not for rapid-firing 30mm cannons. Thus, I challenge the statement as it now stands.Ken (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that no further discussion on this point is effectively "affirmation by silence". Thus, I will edit the article accordingly; i.e., remove the challenged statement.Ken (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Challenging article's caption under Image:H97478t.jpg
Currently, the article's caption for image:H9747t.jpg states: "Aircraft shot up the superstructure with machine-gun and rocket fire." There are several problems with this statement. First, it's likely that damage shown in the image was caused by both aircraft and torpedo boat shelling. Second, more than just the superstructure is shown in the image. And finally, third, the degree of damage is more reflective of cannon shell and rocket hits, not machine gun bullets and rocket hits. So, I believe a better caption might be simply the following: "Amidships starboard hull and superstructure attack damage." In other words, leave out any speculation about what craft or weapons caused the damage.Ken (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just read the caption on the image itself; it's basically the same as my suggestion, but not as descriptive about the location. Based on this, I'll change the caption within the article.Ken (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Third grade propaganda.
Why does the opening paragraph of this article make reference to the attack on the USS Stark by Iraqi forces? The article on the USS Stark does not make reference to the attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli forces.

I realise that Wikipedia is an ideal venue for political activists of all kinds, I just wish it would attract a higher calibre of propagandist. The current version sounds like it was written by a third grade student from the Josepf Goebbels school of propaganda.

--BS Detector--  19th July 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I too don't understand the relevance the USS Stark attack reference -- it has nothing to do with the USS Liberty attack.


 * Generally, as can be seen by my previous comments and challenges, it's my belief that the article is in need of much improvement to achieve anything close to a NPOV.Ken (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As can now be seen in the Edit History, I removed the irrelvant USS Stark attack reference and fluff about the attack being the single largest loss of life in the intelligence community. Now, in addition to a short description of the attack, the opening paragraph simply cites the number killed and wounded, and the fact that the ship was damaged severely.Ken (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I applied a bunch of other modifications -- most relatively minor -- to the article's opening paragraphs in an effort to tone down any "propaganda" or hype type statements. Not perfect, but I believe it's an improvement.  There is still a glaring need for citations.  The article remains wanting in many respects.Ken (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Israeli investigations" section messy
I took a stab at trying to make sense out of the "Israeli investigations" section without performing a complete rewrite. But I'm not happy with the result.

The essence of the section's confusion is the sloppy use of the word "inquiry" and an apparent misunderstanding of the nature of the various Israeli proceedings and reports.

There was a "Fact Finding" inquiry with results published in the "Ram Ron Report." This inquiry was equivalent to the U.S. Navy's Court of Inquiry.


 * Note: It's not clear that the Ram Ron inquiry was technically equivalent to a US Navy Court of Inquiry; but like a court of inquiry, it involved witness testimony (not published in the report), exhibits (not published in the report), and fact finding statements.Ken (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ram Ron inquiry was followed by a judicial inquiry or hearing to consider several gross negligence charges brought forth by the IDF's Chief Military Prosecutor. This judicial hearing supposedly relied upon the Ram Ron Report for facts, as well as some of its own efforts at fact finding.


 * Note: The judicial hearing had a fact finding phase, similar to the Ram Ron inquiry; but otherwise, its focus was on adjudicating charges of gross negligence brought by the IDF's military prosecutor, and determining whether or not any of the charges should go to a trial court.Ken (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Taken together, the Ram Ron inquiry and the judicial hearing appear to constitute many elements a US Navy Court of Inquiry. Thus, I suppose one could view them together as being the IDF's Court of Inquiry; albeit, not exactly.  Perhaps the best approach is to not attempt an analogy between the US Navy and IDF inquiries, and simply refer to them as titled by their original authors.Ken (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This was the extent of investigations (inquiries) performed by the Israelis: one fact finding and one judicial.

Much later, the IDF issued a "History Report" about the attack that supposedly relied upon the two earlier inquiries for its content and, apparently, interviews of IDF members who participated in the attack. The History Report does not claim to be the result of a new inquiry, nor does it claim to supercede the previous inquiries. It appears to be truly a report based primarily on historical documents and references.

Anyway, the current "Israeli investigations" section needs serious mending. I'm not inclined to do a massive edit on the section, but attempting to fix it on a piece-meal basis is tedious. Perhaps others involved with this article can lend a hand.Ken (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * After performing a bit of research, I now have a much better understanding of the differences between the two Israeli inquiries and the historical report. Accordingly, I modified the "Israeli investigations" section.  Hopefully, it now better represents the nature of the inquiries and the sources for statements within the section.Ken (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"American investigations" section messy
The "American investigations" section suffers problems similar to the original "Israeli investigations" section. Not yet clear about how to improve it, but I'll give it some thought.Ken (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Somehow, the "American investigations" section got caught-up in discussion about "claims of ten investigations", concerns about the Court of Inquiry being properly conducted, and other tangential topics not directly related to the listed items.


 * In an attempt to remedy the situation, I have slightly enlarged the list of investigations, attempted to clarify that not all were full investigations of the incident, and then provided a brief description of the content for each one listed. In doing this, I tried my best to maintain a NPOV and not introduce "original research."  Whether or not I achieved my goal remains to be seen, but, perhaps, my effort will help put this section back on track.


 * Initially, my thought was to simply replace the current section with my rewrite; but, instead, I'll try to maintain as much as the original content as possible and add my new material appropriately.Ken (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations and references need attention
The article is in serious need of citations and references maintenance. I'll work toward providing citations and references for my contributions, and fix or provide others where possible.Ken (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Section "The air and sea attack" references/sources?
Currently, the section entitled, "The air and sea attack", contains the following statements:

"The leader of the Mirage formation identified the ship as a destroyer, mistaking an antenna on its bow for a gun. After a series of passes by aircraft, one Israeli pilot, Rabin, who wondered why the Liberty had not returned fire, made a close pass and noted that the ship had Western, not Arabic, lettering. Rabin immediately feared that the ship was Soviet and ordered the planes and a three torpedo boat squadron which had been ordered into the area, to withhold fire pending positive identification of the ship, and sent in two helicopters to search for survivors."

The reference or source for the above information is not clear. I've reviewed the IDF's inquiries and history report and found nothing to support that Liberty, the unidentified ship, was identified as a destroyer. It's indicated that there was speculation by the pilots that the ship might be a destroyer, but no firm identification was indicated. Also, what source contains the claim that an Israel pilot named "Rabin" piloted one of the attacking aircraft? The second sentence, of the above quoted material, appears to say that Rabin, the attack pilot, issued orders. I've found no source for this; although, I have found sources stating that Yitzhak Rabin, the IDF's Chief of Staff, issued orders. Perhaps whoever wrote the above statement somehow believed that Yitzhak Rabin was also one of the attack pilots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjhalliwell (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Adm. Mullen statement
Found: Mullen warns against USS Liberty redux

I'm not sure of the reliability of Press TV, though. This is the JPost article: Analyze This: Disquiet on the 'third front' between the US and Israel. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Scope of "See also" section, subsection: "Other international incidents involving the U.S. military"
Since the USS Liberty incident involved a single neutral U.S. Navy ship and a foreign country, I believe it would be wise and relevant to, at least, limit this section accordingly. Otherwise, it could easily grow out of control with hundreds of entries. Thus, I propose changing its title to: Other international incidents involving a single neutral U.S. Navy ship. And, of course, prune the current list of incidents accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjhalliwell (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly, I was a bit redundant and wordy in my new title suggestion. Changing the suggested title to, Other international incidents involving a neutral U.S. Navy ship, implies a single ship.Ken (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Other international incidents involving a single U.S. Navy ship would be more neutral; I don't think the Arab side in this conflict considers the U.S. to be "neutral". Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, Wiki articles are supposed to be belief neutral and fact focused. All articles are supposed to be based on reliable and verifible sources; albeit, a reliable and verifible source may be relating facts influenced by a certain belief.  So, the line between belief v/s fact orientation can be fuzzy.  None the less, this article is in fact about a legally neutral U.S. Navy ship that was attacked by one foreign nation at war with another foreign nation (foreign being with respect to U.S.).  Thus, to me, it seem reasonable to limit "See also" references accordingly -- and as such, it would not be reflective of a non-NPOV.Ken (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be the practical difference in the links if the criteria were "single" ships vs. "neutral" ships? Also, what do you think of the term "non-combatant", which seems to me even better? Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As explained previously, the phrase, "Other international incidents involving a neutral U.S. Navy ship," connotes a single ship. The term non-combatant does not apply to this incident.


 * The current list under "See also" far exceeds incidences involving a single U.S. Navy ship -- let alone a neutral U.S. Navy ship. If the list is not limited to "neutral" ships, then it opens the list to virtually hundreds of incidences involving U.S. Navy ships at war.Ken (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does the term "non-combatant" not apply to this incident? Was the Liberty a combatant? Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC


 * Please read the wiki article for the term non-combatant. It would be technically correct to call Liberty a "non-combat ship" but not a "non-combatant ship."  In general, auxiliary naval ships are considered non-combat type ships (e.g., supply and research ships); although, they may be armed for defensive purposes.Ken (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In a very strict sense, the term "neutral" is a poor fit too; it applies to the legal position of the ship's country (America). But as a Naval ship it was a representative form (i.e., agent) of its country and, thus, took on the legal attributes thereof.Ken (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Would the Israelis consider the Liberty a non combatant? Isn't part of the Israeli version that Liberty fired on the motorboats first? Couldn't we just say 'Other incidents with US ships outside of war'? Bit wordy though, I guess. Narson (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To expand a bit further, the ship itself was purely property -- a material object. It was the commissioned officers on the ship who commanded/operated the ship in a manner consistent with the legal status and policies its owner -- the American government. Thus, to say the ship was "neutral" is to say that the ship was operated in a manner consistent with the legal status of a neutral nation.


 * The claim by the IDF is that its torpedo boats were chasing an unidentified ship, attacked minutes before by its air force. Then, the story goes, as the torpedo boats rapidly approached the unidentified attack-damaged ship, firing from the ship was detected -- validating the torpedo boat captain's belief that the ship was an enemy ship.  Of course, it is legal (and not unexpected) for a neutral naval ship to take actions to defend itself after being attacked.


 * Here's a slightly modified form of Narson's suggestion: "Other incidents involving US Navy ships not at war." This would include cases when America was purely neutral and when she was neutral but aiding one of the billergent parties.Ken (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the slightly modified form of Narson's suggested title will likely be a good compromise. It overtly removes the word "neutral" from the title -- the apparent source of contention -- while rationally limiting the subsection's scope to incidences with primary attributes similar to this article.Ken (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Other incidents involving US Navy ships not at war." looks good to me. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * About one week from now, if no other ideas/suggestions are put forth on this topic, I'll make the suggested change and modify the current list of incidences accordingly.Ken (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the suggested new title, perhaps the word "incidents" should be "attacks". Thus, changing the new title to: "Other attacks involving US Navy ships not at war."  The word "incident" is extremely broad and could include incidents of groundings and collisions.  I realize the title of this article is "USS Liberty Incident"; but as the opening paragraph explains, the "incident" involved was an attack.Ken (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I noticed that the word "international" was dropped and "ship" became "ships" as a result of Narson's suggestion. These changes are relatively minor, although, they open the door for non-international attacks (e.g., attacks by or on US Navy ships immediately before the American Civil War) and attacks involving more than a single ship (e.g., Japanese attack on US Navy ships at Pearl Harbor).  The original idea here was to offer a title suggestion for limiting the "See also" list to incidences somewhat similar to the incident of the article.  Perhaps dropping the word "international" and changing "ship" to "ships" was inadvertent; i.e., not a point of contention.Ken (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro to Investigations section
I've brought the introduction to the Investigations section here for further discussion: Several official US and Israeli investigations maintained the initially published conclusion that the event was a tragic mistake through misidentification. The scope of the Israeli investigations was to decide whether or not anyone in the Israeli Defense Forces should be tried on crimes (no criminal wrongdoing was found), and accepting as a premise that the attack was a mistake. The scope and performance of U.S. congressional investigations and other U.S. investigations subsequent to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry did not satisfy some parties. The majority of those subsequent U.S. reports were critisized as being issues such as communications failures rather than culpability.. The Naval Court of Inquiry conclusions continue to be disputed (see below). According to Raymond Garthoff many US military and intelligence agencies agree in finding that the Israeli attack was “deliberate and unprovoked.” (Raymond Garthoff, A Journey Through the Cold War Washington, DC: 2001 p. 214.) The introduction to the investigations section should summarize the investigations. Instead, the introduction here is mostly unsourced original research used to discredit them before we even read about them. Sentence by sentence:
 * Several official US and Israeli investigations maintained the initially published conclusion that the event was a tragic mistake through misidentification. - An accurate summary of the investigations.
 * The scope of the Israeli investigations was to decide whether or not anyone in the Israeli Defense Forces should be tried on crimes (no criminal wrongdoing was found), and accepting as a premise that the attack was a mistake. - unsourced original research intended to discredit the investigations.
 * The scope and performance of U.S. congressional investigations and other U.S. investigations subsequent to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry did not satisfy some parties. unsourced original research intended to discredit the investigations, and essentially meaningless as well. Tells us nothing about the actual investigations themselves.
 * The majority of those subsequent U.S. reports were critisized as being issues such as communications failures rather than culpability.. Unclear POV, sourced to an opinion piece written by a Certified Public Accountant in an anti-Israel publication.
 * The Naval Court of Inquiry conclusions continue to be disputed (see below). Meaningless prose intended to discredit the investigations. Note, the sentence doesn't even both to explain what the "Naval Court of Inquiry conclusions" were, or anything else about the "Naval Court of Inquiry", as a proper introduction would.
 * According to Raymond Garthoff many US military and intelligence agencies agree in finding that the Israeli attack was “deliberate and unprovoked.” (Raymond Garthoff, A Journey Through the Cold War Washington, DC: 2001 p. 214.)  - This is an opinion about the attack, repeated many times throughout this article, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the investigations.
 * --Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its pretty clear the sourcing is pretty poor on that. When it comes to things like conspiracy theories, we have to be very careful about the sources we use. If good sources could be found, could you give us an idea of what you do want to see in the section, Jayjg? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The introduction should briefly list the investigations; who made them, what they were called. The rest of the section is for the detail. You might want to include a brief summary of their conclusions in the introduction too. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * [Moved from previous section to where it should be] Jay, it appears that your actions tend to stifle any wiki-like discussion. I do agree that it could and maybe should be re-written, but your edit just deletes the section, another one too. Personally, I’d like to start with the last sentence, and maybe we can discuss it in light of introductory investigation material, which is now missing.  The full quote by Raymond Garthoff is
 * "Our military and intelligence agencies were unanimous in finding it to have been a deliberate and unprovoked Israeli air and sea attack, but President Johnson was determined to accept belated Israeli apologies and claims that it had resulted from misidentification of the US ship, no matter how lacking in credibility those excuses were."
 * It is accessible at Google books, just scroll to page 214. I also think it sums things up pretty well for an introduction.
 * The first sentence is nearly a direct, quote, which can be sourced (I particularly remember the parenthetical “(no criminal wrongdoing was found).”) The second sentence might be better challenged on WP:SYNTH, but it is described in some detail below. On the third sentence we might want to add the original Inquiry quote to the effect that time constraints imposed on them.  The full Gartoff quote should be in the intro to set the stage of where the investigations stand, as well as the standing of their ‘findings’.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Except the quote is pretty obviously from a POV, indicating there was some giant coverup. We want people to be reading the section without bias, especially ours. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is always bias, and Wiki requires more that one POV to make NPOV. There have been serious questions since the beginning and that is part of the story, which should be in the intro. The following quote is from Newsweek’s “Periscope” item.

Although Israel’s apologies were officially accepted, some high Washington officials believe the Israelis knew the Liberty’s capabilities and suspect that the attack might not have been accidental.
 * CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * CO48, as I've already explained, the quote in question is a personal POV that has little to do with the investigations themselves. The introduction to the investigations section should summarize those investigations; Garthoff's opinion does not do so in any way. I'm sure there's some other place in the article where the material is relevant, but not where it has been placed. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One way to avoid introducing POV is to avoid presenting personal opinion-oriented material -- regardless of who stated or published the opinion. Simply because a personal opinion can be cited or comes from an "expert" or reliable source doesn't magically convert it into a fact, as opposed to a POV.Ken (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to use POV, lets use what's in the sources. The Oct 2007 referenced source[6] used implies that either all or at least the great bulk of the survivors dispute the official story - "many ... shouting or weeping". We can't paraphrase that as: "... some veterans ... continue to dispute the official story.[6]". The source is actually reporting fresh suspicions of cover-up - so it's doubly ridiculous suggesting this is a minority view. All the sources I've seen say that the survivors are so totally dissatisfied as to be embittered. Officials similarly unimpressed. PRtalk 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The source says "many". "many" is not a synonym for "all" or "great bulk". It is a subjective term, and a weasel word. We most certainly can and should paraphrase that as: ''"... some veterans ... continue to dispute the official story. NoCal100 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this has to do with POV content in the introductory paragraph of the Investigations section -- the topic of this thread. Based on what I've experienced with this wiki article, I believe the inclusion of POV material should be a rare and well-justified exception, not the rule.Ken (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: off-topic content cut-and-pasted into a new topic -- not by me, I'm just noting the fact.Ken (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What the heck does this have to do with the topic ("Intro to Investigations section") of this thread?Ken (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, V, NOR
Wayne, regarding this edit, in your almost two years editing Wikipedia have you come across Wikipedia's fundamental content policies, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV? I ask because your insertion appears to violate all three. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is originally Terence O'Keefe's critique in WRMEF of a section of Jay Cristol's book where Cristol misrepresents the investigations. I then crosschecked O'Keefe with this article and only those three investigations differed substantially from all those listed here so I then read relevant sections of several of the investigations and they support O'Keefe's version. I then added the note as relevant to the reader. My only mistake was forgetting to add the pdf to the note. Are you disputing the accuracy of the note? Wayne (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, you're using material from the Certified Public Accountant again. Normally I would point out that WP:V requires you to cite your sources, and WP:NPOV to name them, but since the material comes from a Certified Public Accountant I'll just note that it utterly fails WP:RS and leave it at that. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by accountant. If you mean he is not a reliable source because he is one what has that to do with the reliability? That critique was submitted to the Secretary of the Army as part of a chain of evidence for falsifications in Cristols book so is public record as part of the investigation. You accept Cristol as a RS despite him being far less credible than O'Keefe. Is the writers job description of more importance than the truth of what he writes? I ask you again....Are you disputing the accuracy of the note? Wayne (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK........I just checked to see if O'Keefe is a CPA. You are right, he is. What you didn't mention is that he has almost finished a Masters degree in strategic intelligence and that his thesis is on the USS Liberty incident. I guess that makes him a RS. Do you want to put the note back in or should I? Should it be a note or should it be reworded and go in the body of the article? Wayne (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I'm right. Anyway, he wrote the paper while he was an accountant. He is still an accountant. And he hasn't even finished that "Master's degree in strategic intelligence". I guess that excludes him from the category RS, except when it comes to Accounting. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had no idea the RS category was so restrictive. While O'Keefe is an expertise in the subject he can't comment on it because he doesn't have a degree yet. Wayne (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, where does it state in wiki rules that only people with a degree or a "proper degree" can be considered as expert or reliable secondary sources?Ken (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say either thing. Is O'Keefe, even though an accountant, a recognized expert in the field? Notable historian? Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Recognised by who? He obviously has expertise in this particular subject and shouldn't be discounted because supporters of the official account don't recognise him. And you still have not answered my question. Are you disputing the accuracy of the note? After all the very first page of the IDF History Department Report supports the notes accuracy giving it verifiability, O'Keefe is a published secondary source eliminating the OR arguement and as both sources make the same claim there is no breach of NPOV. Wayne (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Article protected
I have fully protected the article for one day in light of edit warring. (The article has been on my watchlist since I addressed the copyright concerns at Moorer Report.) I hope this brief freezing of the article will allow contributors an opportunity to resolve how best to address the disputed content on the talk page. Please consider dispute resolution processes as may be necessary. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE issue
Why are people inserting one specific claim from one affidavit into the general description of the investigations,, particularly when the claims are based on alleged and un-recorded conversations with Admiral Kidd, who never actually made these claims himself? Please review WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the material has been added again, even though there has been no corresponding justification here on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful for folks to improve the article (e.g. satisfy the need for citations, etc.) as it stands -- or once stood -- instead of complicating matters by adding stuff that has little or nothing to do with the facts of the matter.Ken (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would indeed. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is not why people are inserting the specific claim. The problem is why the specific claims are being removed. Claims for removing the entries added to the USS Liberty Wikipedia Pages all revolve around the claim that they are violating Wikipedia Policies. In the latest updates, the entry concerning Captain Ward Boston are the ONLY entries submitted from the Moorer report of 2003, yet they are removed because they supposedly violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Clearly, these supposed violations need to be discussed:


 * 1) First of all, since these entries are the only entries from the Moorer report, it is those of you removing the entries who are creating WP:NPOV violations. You do so by allowing those POV with which you agree, and removing the POV whose source is the Moorer report. Removing only the POV of one report while allowing the entries of others is a quintessential violation of WP:NPOV.


 * 2) Secondly, the specific claim by Captain Ward Boston of his conversation with Admiral Kidd, his submission of the results of this conversation via affidavit to the independent Moorer Investigation, and it's subsequent entry into the Nation Public record of the Congressional Record hardly qualifies as 'alleged and unrecorded'. They are not alleged - Captain Ward has stated so emphatically. The results of the conversation was recorded in the Congressional Record. Thus, these entries can hardly be considered a "Fringe Theory" and thus cannot be a violation of WP:FRINGE. The Moorer report, unlike each of the previous investigations with the obvious exception of Admiral Kidd's original investigation, was not based on the original investigation by Captain Kidd, and therefore is a valid source whose opinion should be presented in this Wikipedia entry.


 * In light of this, it is most of the other reports, with the exception of Admiral Kidds original report and the Moorer report, which can be considered Fringe theories. This is so since the WP:FRINGE violation explicitly applies, in this case, to a number of these reports which are based on the original report by Admiral Kidd. Since these reports, other then the Moorer report, are all based on the Admiral Kidds original report, it is these reports which actually violate the WP:FRINGE policy.WorldFacts (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The section in question is about the investigations in general, not about a specific allegation made by one obviously involved person. Anyone can make whatever claims they like, and even get them read into the Congressional Record; for example, the invented quote by Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich was read into the Congressional Record, even though it is a hoax. Boston made a claim about Macnamara, based on alleged conversations he had with Kidd, in which Kidd allegedly made claims about what Macnamara allegedly said to him. No-one has ever confirmed the contents of those alleged conversations, neither Macnamara, nor Kidd himself. The insertion of unconfirmed third-hand hearsay is out of place, and violates WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:BLP. Boston's POV gets plenty of air-time in this article, so it's not like his opinions are being suppressed, but his unverified hearsay about a living third party certainly won't be going in there. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Jayjg on this one. The section under discussion deals with USG investigations, inquiries and reports related to the incident.  The Moorer Commission was NOT a USG entity or a representative thereof; therefore, its report was NOT a USG report -- it was a report from an purely independent, non-governmental entity.  The fact that statements from the Moorer Commission's report were read into the Congressional record does not change the fact that the Moorer Commission and its report were independent of the USG.  In short, this type of material simply does not belong in this section.


 * The above logic also applies to independent parties (i.e., non-USG sanctioned parties) who may have statements appearing in the congressional record or elsewhere.Ken (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion that might help clarify matters. Change the heading "Israeli Investigations" to "Government of Israel Investigations".  Change the heading "American Investigations" to "United States Government Investigations".  This should make clear that these sections are limited to government investigations, reports, etc.Ken (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with changing the headings as per Ken's suggestion. While I agree that Boston is already mentioned I feel his placement in controversies is a problem due to it being from an investigation rather than an unsupported opinion. Perhaps move all of Boston from controversies to a new subsection under "Investigations of the attack" (ie: Other Investigations) where it can be properly presented and rebutted as the case may be. Wayne (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have said accusing the US government and a major ally of a huge conspiracy cover up based on hearsay that has been refuted by the source to be a pretty controversial argument. That being said, how is Boston portrayed in the press in all this? As a crackpot? As a critic? As an independent investigator? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not like the idea of listing the investigations under 'government' versus nationality, and argue that it is not the correct approach, for the current removal of sourced material, by an admin with an opposing pov. It will only delay open discussion, or of course, just end it.
 * I believe his claims of WP:undue and WP:fringe are invalid in the first place. It may appear undue (by length), but only because one side has stopped questioning the incident 22 years ago; it was an accident, sorry, and that was accepted at the time, but questions and charges of cover-uphave remained for over 40 years, since day one.  The Moorer report, however, is relatively new, and should be reported with its information.  The report's authors are reliable, three of them have their own articles; the Congressional Record is reliable as a published source. The authors and the source are not FRINGE.   There are two sides to the story, accident or deliberate. In this case, the only FRINGE pov would be if extraterrestrials were blamed.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to be confusing various things. First of all, having their own articles means things are notable, not necessarily reliable sources (Not that I am refuting that the authors might be reliable sources on certain aspects, just that the logic does not follow). The congressional record is, as I understand it, like the Hansard. It is a reliable source as to what was that, that is all it purports to be. It is not a journal or other such work. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what do you think on the titled subject, is this legitimate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE? CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think that Boston's statements are well covered. Just because he screamed things loud and often does not make him merit more coverage than others. Fringe/Conspiracy wise, well, there are parts of the policy that Jayge could be referencing, you'd have to ask him what part of the policy he is referring to. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asking whether you consider it WP:FRINGE, no opinion? I'll ask Jayjg. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Acctually you asked if I thought it was UNDUE /and/ FRINGE. I responded, I do think it gave undue weight to Boston's theory/claims and that I didn't know about fringe. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdent, Jayjg, what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * CO48, did you not read my comments above? Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Several comments have implied that the entries being deleted were deleted because there are stating 'opinion'. There have been no opinions stated. In an attempt to assure that only relevant data from the Moorer report be displayed, only quoted statements copied verbatim were extracted from the Moorer report and placed in the deleted entry, plus identifying information on those speaking. Repeated use of the word 'opinion' is a non sequitor.


 * Ken suggests that the titles of the investigations part should be changed to "Israeli Government Investigations" and "American Government Investigations". Unfortunately, this is a ruse to attempt to create a filter via which the Moorer report can be excluded, while others can be accepted. This becomes blatantly obvious when one sees who led these two investigations. For one, in both the Original (Admiral Kidd) Report and the Moorer report, it was still senior Military personnel who were performing the investigations. As is commonly known, Military Personnel are part of the government. Secondly and more to the point: The Original investigation was lead by Admiral Isaac C. Kidd. The Moorer was lead by Admiral Thomas H. Moorer. Both of these gentlemen were USN Admirals. I fail to see how renaming the sections will change the rank or sincerity of those involved in the investigations. I also fail to see how changing the titles of the sections will make the Moorer Report less independent, or how the conclusions of Admiral's Kidds tainted (as ordered!) investigation can be considered more reputable. Afterall, the Moorer report tells us that:


 * 1) Admiral Kidd was given a week to conduct his investigation and
 * 2) it's conclusion was preordained by then Secretary of State Robert McNamara and President Lyndon B. Johnson. That conclusion being that it was to be found a case of mistaken identity. These were Admiral Kidds orders.


 * Perhaps Jayjg's problem appears to be that these entries show Israel and the IDF in a bad light. This is unfortunate, but is no reason to hide the truth. None of the other reasons stated so far hold any water as shown by several commenters in these discussions who have already indicated that there are no WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE violations. As we see above, we have several comments made and in the end, we still have, after lengthy discussions, user CasualObserver&#39;48 asking Jayjg "What is the specific error."

I for one would like to see an explanation from JayJG as to why inclusion of the entry is a violation - as Worldfact originally proposed several weeks ago. Henrywinklestein (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The entry has been added back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.143.165 (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg's "problem" is that they are one specific third-hand claim made during an un-recorded, alleged conversation. Kidd never claimed this himself, and Macnamara hasn't claimed it either. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion for changing the titles is NOT a ruse. The Israeli and American investigation sections have always -- until this time -- dealt with official government investigations, reports, etc.  Clearly, one or two people want to expand these sections to include investigations from any Israeli or American source.  This makes no sense, and it opens a very wide door for inclusion of all type of materials that resemble an investigation by anybody who happens to be American or Israeli, or who was somehow involved with the original government investigations.Ken (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To expand a bit, my suggestion had to do with categorizing and organizing information in a rational manner, not some type of "trick" to exclude information. If somebody wants to incorporate the Moorer Commission and its report into the article, then the appropriateness of that can be discussed; but it does not logically fit into a section listing and describing government investigations.Ken (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC


 * I see that somebody named "pumpkinseed7" has decided that placing the United States Government investigations section before the Government of Israeli investigations section somehow constitutes "better order." And perhaps it does.  After all, in a court of law, the victim's side of the story is presented before the assailant's.  In this respect, perhaps the entire article should be reviewed to ensure American claims and facts are presented before Israeli claims and facts.  Of course, Wiki isn't a court of law -- although some seem to believe otherwise.


 * Also, the opening paragraph, for the Investigations section, expresses a very distinctive non-NPOV.Ken (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it did, as does most of the section, which in any event is original research. I've deleted the intro, it added nothing but POV. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe a factual intro statement/paragraph is useful, but it should be devoid of anybody's opinion (i.e., POV) -- whether cited or not.


 * As to "original research", within the list of "investigations" and brief descriptions (excluding the Moorer Commission Report), I see little to nothing that constitutes a synthesis of information or data to yield a discovery or description beyond the true contents of the "investigations" themselves. If you find otherwise, it would be helpful to cite content that you believe is the result of "original research", instead of being a true and verifiable synopsis.Ken (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the section below, where I explain it line by line. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I believe the last two paragraphs, at the end of the USG (American) investigations section, should be removed or placed elsewhere -- perhaps in a dissenting views section. In other words, keep the "Investigations" section focused purely on presenting the factual aspects of the "investigations" and their content, without introducing opinion-oriented information about their content.Ken (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Explicit Excerpts from Moorer Report added to avoid further WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE violations. WorldFacts (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting such a huge section for one report is unbalancing and inappropiate (Wikisource would be a good place for the entire report to go, if it is released in PD). Has any news firm of repute picked up the report? They might have included a synopsis that we can reference and wrie a brief summary of the report citing that? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the deleted material was overly long for this section, and should be shortened, but specifically sourced material should be discussed, not deleted. I believe that both sides should be presented, but since the Moorer Report only supports one side, editors must deal legitimately with it and instant deletion should not the method.
 * The inclusion of Boston's reference to Kidd's belief is questionable, I agree, but editors seem to have missed something. Boston says he heard inquiry testimony at the time from crew members regarding the firing on life rafts.  He also notes that these sections of testimony do not appear in the inquiry report.  He therefore has first-hand knowledge that the report is not an accurate reflection of the testimony.  That is not noted in the current article, and I believe it should.
 * The section on the role of the Israeli lobby to suppress the story of the Liberty is a whole new section that doesn't exist; it has been a staple subject for the lobby and is easily WP:RS'd. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Moorer Commission Report is NOT an official U.S. government inquiry or report. Before the introduction of the Moorer report, this section involved only official USG and GOI inquiries and reports.  The Moorer Commission report is out-of-place in this section.


 * Perhaps a solution is to add two sub-sub-sections the "American Investigations" sub-section and title them "Government Investigations" and "Non-Government Investigations" respectively, or otherwise make it abundantly clear that the Moorer Commission was an independent, private citizen group; i.e., NOT a USG sanctioned commission.Ken (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a decent solution as the Moorer Commission report is far to important to ignore. Henrywinklestein (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's suggested text for a brief NPOV summary of the Moorer Commission and its report: The Moorer Commission was a group of retired senior-level military and government officials who conducted a self-initiated, private citizens investigation of the USS Liberty attack. The Commission was composed of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), General of Marines Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia).  The Commission's report was entitled: "Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli attack on the 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."  The report contains findings of fact and opinions about various aspects of the attack, as indicated in its title, that either refute or expand upon findings and opinions in official government inquiries and reports.


 * I believe this provides a succinct summary of the nature of the Moorer Commission and its report. If readers what to learn more, then they can read the report for themselves; i.e., this section is not the place to fully explain or list the report's contents.Ken (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are we just having blocks of that report put on there with no real prose about the report itself? If we are to have such reports, can we at least be spared blocks of text from them where 2 sentences of summary would do? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on my relatively minor involvement with this article, it appears to me that attempting to construct a well-structured, NPOV wiki article about a highly controversial matter is like trying to herd cattle without a designated trail boss and full-time crew; i.e., mission impossible.Ken (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ken - comment saying "Based on my rela...." . Clearly the sections on American and Israeli investigations need more from the reports themselves, instead of perceived POV from those who enter commentary on the reports themselves. Over the next few days I will add some general summary excerpt from each report. It seems pointless to make a comment or POV of some reports, and not others. My attempts to include excerpts from the Moorer Report are more often then not removed, generally for reasons which are not violations of any Wikipedia policies. In order to rectify that, I will being looking at each report mentioned and adding some summery - lifted directly from the reports themselves. This is essentially WP:NPOV violation proof. Contributor commentary is Not NPOV, by definition, to those who don't agree with a contributors comment. Instead, we will let the reports speak for themselves. LITERALLY. WorldFacts (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We are not wikisource. We are not a repository of primary sources. What you want to look for, WorldFacts, is reliable secondary sources that speak about the report. What are they saying? Or if you are using the primary source, simply state what the report says (I am not sure using the primary is a huge issue in this case, as it is pretty overt). Copy pasting huge chunks is just not cricket, it gives undue weight to those that get such treatment and would bloat the article for no gain and a loss of clarity if we did it for each report. Not to mention that the seective quoting would reveal more of our POV into the article. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WorldFacts, it may be clear to you, but not others. There is a vast difference between a true and verifiable summary of facts and a personal comment.  But you seem to believe there is no difference unless the summary contains copious amounts of quoted material with its inherit POV.

There's no need to be so combative. Worldfacts has a point here. And he/she deserves a legitimate answer. Henrywinklestein (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply spewing quoted material does not magically remove ones own POV, or well-serve the reader. It's very easy to filter and present quoted material in a manner that reflects an author's POV and, thus, ill-serves readers.


 * The challenge is to present a brief and balance summary of the nature of each investigation/report and its content (i.e., its POV) without introducing ones own POV or extolling the POV of the given investigation or report.


 * I believe readers are better served by presenting a brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report with sparse use of quoted material to illustrate (i.e., not extroll or elaborate) the POV of the investigator(s) or report author(s). To this end, if an authoritative and verifiable summary of an investigation or report exists (especially one within the source itself), then simply quote it instead of attempting to synthesize one.Ken (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First, let's talk about 'a brief, balanced and verifiable summary'. I originally used
 * 1) Summaries from the Congressional record. These are not liked and removed.
 * 2) I then used actual Quotes from the Congressional Record. These are not liked and removed.
 * 3) Now I am lifting direct quotes, as numbered, from the report. These are not liked and removed.
 * In all cases, these entries are removed. Note that while these are removed, no change to the entry to make it palatable to the person removing the entity is even attempted. In Wikipedia, that's called censoring. Complaints are specified, but no attempt to resolve the complaint is even attempted. One is led to believe that the mere existence of the entry is what is not desired.


 * And the fourth point I will make is that


 * 4) we still have comments such as: Outdent, Jayjg, what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? " From above.

I for one would like to see this question answered clearly by JayJG. Its not obvious to me what the issue is at all. And please don't refer me to some other section --- explain the issue in clear terms right here. Henrywinklestein (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So, a summary is not acceptable, using the congressional record as a reliable source is not acceptable, and now using actual quotes from the report is not acceptable. These entries will be returned as they do not violate any WP policies. If they did, the question above would have been answered. That question being: "[W]hat is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE". The real problem, as Ken identified it, is that controversial subjects are simply controversial. My solution is flawless: The only way to avoid a WP:NPOV violation is to quote from the Controversial sources themselves and effectively allow them to speak for themselves. Contributor may not like the quoted information, but I see no inherent right to simply remove them for POV, especially without even attempting to resolve problem.


 * More importantly, I see no reason why 1 or 2 persons should presume to speak for the planet and remove any and all forms of mention of an actual report which 1) has reputable sources (congressional record), 2) is quoted verbatim, 3) doesn't violate any WP protocols, and 4) appears only to violate the sensibilities of ONLY 2 WP Contributors, neither of which have been able to explicitly site any WP violations nor provide modifications which address their concerns, instead resorting to the exclusive act of removing entries.


 * To help me better understand your position, please comment on what you find inaccurate, improper or lacking in the following suggested summary: "The Moorer Commission was a group of retired senior-level military and government officials who conducted a self-initiated, private citizens investigation of the USS Liberty attack. The Commission was composed of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), General of Marines Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia). The Commission's report was entitled: "Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli attack on the 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." The report contains findings of fact and opinions about various aspects of the attack, as indicated in its title, that either refute or expand upon findings and opinions in official government inquiries and reports."Ken (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Simple, it contains no relevant quotes from the report itself. Quotes from these reports appear in several summaries. Actual examples are shown below.


 * Example 1:
 * The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry record contains indepth testimony by a limited number of Liberty crew members and subject matter experts; exhibits of attack damage photographs, various messages and memorandums; and findings of fact. As to culpability, "It was not the responsibility of the court to rule on the culpability of the attackers, and no evidence was heard from the attacking nation", the court concluded that "available evidence combines to indicate..(that the attack was) a case of mistaken identity." Additionally, the Court found that "heroism displayed by the Commanding Officer, officers and men of the Liberty was exceptional."


 * Example 2:
 * The CIA Memorandums consist of two documents: one dated June 13, 1967, and the other dated June 21, 1967. The June 13 memorandum is an "account of circumstances of the attack…compiled from all available sources." The June 21 memorandum is a point-by-point analysis of Israeli inquiry findings of fact. It concludes: "The attack was not made in malice toward the US and was by mistake, but the failure of the IDF Headquarters and the attacking aircraft to identify the Liberty and the subsequent attack by torpedo boats were both incongruous and indicative of gross negligence."


 * Example 3:
 * The Clark Clifford Report consists of a review of "all available information on the subject" and "deals with the question of Israeli culpability", according to its transmittal memorandum. The report concludes: "The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished."


 * So, quote from sources are acceptable, but quotes from the Moorer report are censored left and right. Now, the latest ploy is change the titles of the sections and create the artificial filter via which the Moorer report can 'legitimately' be excluded, just as I predicted would occur. Clearly, the solution is to simply create a new section specifically designed for Private Commissions, and I will follow the convention which is acceptable, which as the 3 examples above show, quotes from reports are acceptable.WorldFacts (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, notice the not so subtle difference between one or two in text quotes and several chunks of simply copied text with no context. Just because there are geckos, doesn't mean dragons exist. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My original entries had 2 quotes not much different then any of the 3 examples sited above, yet these were removed for WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE. I'll remind you that this rather large discussion ,whose title is "WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE issue", has yet to produce a valid and precise WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE violation explanation. As I've said before, I don't believe one is forthcoming.


 * The problem some are having is not with the length of the quotes or the context. It's the factual content that is offending the sensibilities of some.WorldFacts (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, WP:AGF, but your first wording (which I reverted out because the issue had been raised here and was under discussion) was closer, in my mind, to what should be there. I apologise if I gave the impression in the revert that the form used then was wrong. It certainly read as a more wiki type of prose (Content, obviously, is still contentious....but still). I don't have time this evening, but tommorrow if I get a chance I'll dig out the one I reverted out when discussion started here and take a good look at it and make a suggestion if needed on edits to be made. I'd rather we moved towards a consensus wording that included the report (If it can be cited appropiatly, secondary I'm really looking for there, I'd suggesting checking the paper archives for the day after the congress reading) but was acceptable to all. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a far better and factual summary, Ken. Get some cites in there and it wins. The bad faith diatribes and provocations of WorldFacts will just have to go unanswered. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My sense of the matter is that WorldFacts is intensely interested in inserting, somewhere in the article, the passages he keeps quoting from the Moorer Report and, thus, not truly focused on attempting to summarize the nature of the Moorer Commission and its report. There may be a place within the article for WorldFacts to do this, but based on the section's current structure (list of reports followed by brief summary thereof) it simply doesn't fit well.Ken (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-appointed investigators do not belong in the section discussing official investigations. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the title of both the American and Israeli investigations sub-sections to include the word "government" to classify the type of investigations each sub-section contains. Of course, this does not prevent somebody from adding a new sub-section for a different class of investigations, but it may help prevent misunderstanding about the type of investigations and reports contained in the current two sections.Ken (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been 19 days or so and still no real reasons for removal under WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE or WP:NPOV. I've merged part of Ken's suggested introduction with the original entry. The purpose being to explain who the investigators were. The 2 original quotes from the reports Findings are included.WorldFacts (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WF, You did not summarize the findings of Commission. If the quote from Boston is illustrative of the Commission's reported findings, then somehow weave the quote (or part of the quote) into a summary statement of the Commission's findings.

I did this the other day and my comments were deleted. Can you please explain very clearly what you mean ? Henrywinklestein (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Put yourself in the shoes of a reader who has little to no knowledge of the Moorer Commission and its report. All that you've explained to this reader is the Commission's membership and that its report contains a statement from Boston -- the statement that you quoted.  Thus, an uninformed reader remains uninformed about the nature of the Commissions findings; although, based on Boston's quoted statement one might infer that the findings did not agree with official findings.Ken (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * With an "Independent American Investigations" sub-section, I suppose it opens the door to listing and summarizing the findings of Dr. Borne, Dr. Cristol and other published independent American investigators and researchers. As I recall, there is at least one Israeli independent investigator, perhaps an "Independent Israeli Investigations" sub-section should be included as well.Ken (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your claim that there are "still no real reasons for removal", please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The Moorer report is no more an "investigation" than Cristol's or Bamford's books are. We don't list their work as "investigations" either. If there's anything of value in the report, work it into the body of the text. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, "an uninformed reader remains uninformed about the nature of the Commissions findings" would know more about the report if more about the report was written, but that would be onerous and attempts to do that also get the summary removed. Is your act of removing the entry supposed to help inform them? I think not. Your objective is to remove the entry, not improve it. If you wanted to improve it as you describe, you would have improved it as you describe.


 * You say that there were private Israeli Commissions? Find some and create a 4th category called Independent Israeli Investigations.


 * However, we have had some 19 Days of Debate and no violations expressly defined. You're removing the entry is tantamount to censoring the article, an act which has been duly noted. I have replaced it.

I agree --- I see no violations ... none explained to my satisfaction.Henrywinklestein (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, I suggest you add it's content to your USS Liberty Page, which is sorely lacking in real facts. I see now why you continue to remove my entries. They don't exist in yours. Apparently you feel you can define reality. Only the members of the USS Liberty Crew who gave sworn, written depositions for the commission can do that for the American side. WorldFacts (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fairly sure we can't just rely on the reports of one group of people who, probably more than anyone, have a strong POV. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Narson, please modify your comment: It is unclear what group you are referring too.


 * The only group I care about are the survivors and those they spoke to. I have seen video of the men speaking on various venues. You Tube is one source, but is not considered valid for Wikipedia. My sources above are the Congressional Record and Admirals (retired, but admirals none the less) who were alive during the incident and actually investigating these incidents. These sources are quite reliable.


 * Secondly, if the 'group' you are referring to are the survivors of the the attack, then I can only say it would be ludicrous to claim that the survivors, as actual witnesses of the actual attack, have an invalid or 'biased' POV. Quite frankly, their POV is the only one that matters. They are the ones who witnessed the events, start to finish and were ordered not to discuss it. Consider: If it really was a case of mistaken identity, why were they not allowed to discuss it and concur? Could it be that they would not have done so? That is why this subject is so contentious.


 * I have no interest in reading about the white washed results of tainted investigations on a matter of such great importance. Several of the American Government investigations listed were based on Admiral Kidds original investigation in which he was ordered, by both Robert McNamara and President Johnson, to conclude a Case of Mistaken Identity. I could easily use WP:FRINGE to remove references to several of the investigations. In the interest of fairness, I have not resorted to removing these references using WP:FRINGE as my reason. However, I will likewise not have my entries removed incessantly for absolutely no reason at all, reasons which I have been patiently waiting for for some 19 days. WorldFacts (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was speaking of the survivors yes. To put it bluntly, I don't think being shot at or bombed makes what you have to say any more or less factual, though it will obviousl colour your viewpoint on those shooting and bombing you. The survivors certainly should be able to get their viewpoint across, and they do on their website. Wikipedia shouldn't be championing the survivors any more that we shoud champion Israel. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Read this very, very carefully, WorldFacts. The Moorer Report is no more an official "investigation" than Cristol's book. Including it in the "Inestigations" sections violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Can your eyes read that text? I'll repeat it. The policies your insertion violates are WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Now, I hope we'll have no more of your WP:IDONTHEARYOU claims. Feel free to work relevant material into the body of the article, as with the Cristol and Bamford material. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I read it carefully and my insertions violate no WP Policies, only your sensibilities. You do not speak for the planet - when you learn this, please let us all know. Please refrain from any further deletes of this entry. WorldFacts (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also notice that CasualObservers original question to you was deleted. I wonder who did that? It doesn't matter, I found it's original text. It has been added here as you need to be reminded that claiming a violation does not a violation make. You would actually need to explain yourself. Something you have not done, but which has not prevented you from vandalizing this WP page.


 * And now for CasualObservers original question:

Outdent, Jayjg, what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above was reinserted by World Facts. This entry was removed at some point in the past. Since no explanation was ever provided, the question stands. WorldFacts (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read this very, very carefully, WorldFacts. The Moorer Report is no more an official "investigation" than Cristol's book. Including it in the "Inestigations" sections violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Can your eyes read that text? I'll repeat it. The policies your insertion violates are WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Now, I hope we'll have no more of your WP:IDONTHEARYOU claims. Feel free to work relevant material into the body of the article, as with the Cristol and Bamford material. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Moorer Report deserves mention as the only independent American report since the event. Since there was never a congressional investigation, an independent report by persons involved in the original investigation presents a POV which has never been presented. Reverted back since there are no Violations. I do not see Jayjg's point, if indeed he ever had one - to date he has yet to explain it, other then to simply claim the entry as a violation. From Jayjg, I only see censorship. We have been through several iterations of the entries. Summaries of the report, quotes from the report or Quotes from the Congressional record are removed. No explanation of why they are violations, just statements that they are violations. Rear Admirals, lawyers and witnesses make for valid investigations. I see no point in comparing my entry or the Moorer Report with Cristal's book. Jay Cristal is a charlatan, Admiral Moorer's credentials are much more relevant and trustworthy. WorldFacts (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't one side claim there was a congressional investigation? Might I suggest the use of secondary sources. So people talking about the report or its impact. If this was a significant report, I'm sure there was some media coverage that you can draw from. I still think it should probably be moved to annother section than the one which looks at governmental investigations, for weight issues. A small group of self appointed 'Justices at Large' are probably less reputable than most modern nation states, no? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You already include reports that are nothing more than partisan statements in the investigations section so the claim you don't want to give the Moorer Commission undue weight is ridiculous. Wayne (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Less reputable? We have a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador. I'd say their reputations alone make their investigation significant and it should have it's own section. The findings down't even lay specific blame anywhere but call for a new Naval enquiry with Congressional oversight which is the only way the Moorer findings can be refuted (or supported)
 * What was the nature of this "investigation"? Did it receive any significant third-party coverage? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As Jayjg points out, I have asked for secondary sources several times, none has been forth coming. Ans all those positions you just mentioned draw their reputation from the state they serve, so how can they be more reputable than the state (Ok, that is fairly academic, but still). I would also point out your summary of the report there does not tally at all with the impression of the report that Worldfacts gave in hs edit. I am not American or Israeli, nor do I have any great interest in the ship, so I cannot pretend to be an expert on the various reports and their findings, but secondary soruces surely should exist about any notable report? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The request for a secondary source being a newspaper article is completely unnecessary. The entry is already referencing the Congressional Record. The report itself is the source, and the Congressional Record is a secondary source. Are you suggesting that you have removed my entry because I did not produce a third source? A source which you require be a Newspaper Article? There is no WP policy which requires newspaper articles as sources nor any policy allowing for entries to be removed for the lack of a newspaper article concurring with a WP entry. The Congressional Record is already a second source and is quite reliable. Secondly, as Wayne indicates below, Newspapers do not normally leave their articles up on the web forever, so the request for a newspaper article, even if supplied, would simply open the door for removal of the entry once the newspaper article is removed from public viewing and can only be seen at hard to find archives or not at all. WorldFacts (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is merely a recording of testimony. The congressional record has no reliability for what is said, only that it was said. It enters into no comment, engages in no evaluation. I'm sorry but if it wasn't even covered in major newspapers, this report does not sound overly credible, reliable or important. Infact, something like half the hits for Moorer Report are wiki mirrors. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that if the Moorer Report were reported in a newspaper, then it would be more true? More believable? More Credible? In other words, like this: Dewey Elected President. A newspaper article such as this makes a mockery of your suggestion. Basically, we can throw that suggestion right out the window. Second, a newspaper entry is never held on the web for long, so suggesting - and in your case requiring - that I produce a newspaper article on an event which occurred 5 years ago is ludicrous. To lift a quote from Wayne, the Moorer Report was done and finalized in 2003 by "a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador. I'd say their reputations alone make their investigation significant..."  WorldFacts (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I said secondary source, one that provides commentary or such. As for paprs, the idea that 5 year old newspapers are impossible to get, now /that/ is ludicrous. Hell, I can lay my hands on local papers from the last century just by popping down to my local studies library. I can access national paper archives going back to the 19th century via a database...so...pull the other one mate, it has bells on. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not comment on the fact that the report was headed by "a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador. I'd say their reputations alone make their investigation significant...". Do I still need a newspaper article or are these people not reputable? That's what needs to be decided - the clock is ticking..... WorldFacts (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out already, anything at all can get read into the Congressional record, including outright falsehoods. The Congressional record does not get involved in fact-checking, it just prints what people say in Congress. If something is significant, it will have been reported on in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Please review WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:REDFLAG. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment implies that Wikipedia does not accept the Congressional record as valid secondary source. I am not aware of any WP policy which concurs with your personal opinion.
 * You have not responded to the question: Is a Commission headed by "a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador" not reputable? Are all American officers and American Ambassadors liars, in your opinion?


 * As for WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:REDFLAG, I've read them all and none of them indicate even in the slightest how my entry violates any of them. If one is considering WP:UNDUE, you and User:Narson have been actively deleting quotes from the Moorer report, thus giving other reports more weight then necessary, so it is you who are violating WP:UNDUE by decreasing the exposure of the report on the USS Liberty incident page. The notion that a report by "a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador" is a Fringe Theory is specious at best, thus there is no violation of WP:FRINGE. The same goes for WP:REDFLAG, precisely due to the members of the commission who were reputable men in the military and government. All three of your complaints are easily refuted.
 * I'll remind you in particular that the question from CasualObserver'48 remains unanswered. That question being:

Outdent, Jayjg, what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why have you not specifically answered the above question to anyone's satisfaction?WorldFacts (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? Henrywinklestein (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The clock is ticking? Really? Did Jimbo institute a deadline over night? Please read WP:DEADLINE. There is no clock, no rush. Or perhaps you were referring to protection? Though I shall WP:AGF and believe that you weren't. I have spoken on the reputation of the various people involved and how their reputation is reliant upon the nation which they served, so that their report is likely not suitable to be on the same level as the reports of the nation from which their reputations derive. The moorer report, if it can be verified and sources that cover it in signficant third party commentary or evaluation, is certainy suitable for inclusion in a suitable fashion. Third party commentary is important in many cases. For example, it might include information on who funded the report etc. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "The clock is ticking" refers to the amount of time that this page has been locked for editing. Also, no other reports listed on the USS Liberty page mention who paid for the reports. I fail to see why my entry should include such a superfluous reference. The report stands on the reputation of those who conducted it.WorldFacts (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Therin lies the problem. Secondary sources are problematic. For example an article in the Houston Chronicle was not only deleted from it's website four weeks after publication but also deleted from the archive. You'll need to dig out the physical copy to read unless you accept copies made by other websites. This is one of the stories that mainstream newspapers either do not like covering or are pressured not to cover by the owners as in the case of the HC. Wayne (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the internet way back machine, it might have a cached version. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a fringe theory, it has virtually no mention at all in the open press. A google search brings up 9 entires, all of which are either mirrors or links to this article.  The only other place I can find it is on a conspiracy theory website on the USS Liberty.  I can't find any secondary sources that give it serious consideration.  Justin talk 23:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was a fringe theory 90% of this article would dissapear. It is an unresolved controversy. The Moorer Commission was and is the only investigation to include all eyewitness testimony and examine all available evidence from both Israel and America. All other investigations were incomplete to varying degrees. This makes the report notable until the appropriate official investigation can be completed (this is the only incident in US naval history to have had no congressional investigation) which is what the report asks for. Wayne (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Justin is speaking specifically of the Moorer report here, that it is a fringe report etc. To be honest though, the idea that Israeli deliberatly for no reason attacked a US ship is certainly viewed as a fringe theory, at least outside the US. Though this doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered, it is a notable theory. However, it does mean we should insist on good quality sources. Lest we end up with Irving style 'historians' (before anyone yells BLP at me for using scare quotes, please see Irving v Penguin Publishing [2000]). -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clearly a fringe theory, there are no secondary sources backing it up. What do we know of the Moorer Commission, who commissioned it, where did their evidence come from, is it reliable?  So far the only link to it is on a site dedicated to fringe conspiracy theories on the attack on the USS Liberty.  I don't see any good quality sources backing this up.  Strongly held beliefs don't triumph over wiki policies. Justin talk 09:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are another person who believes that a report by ""a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador" makes for a Fringe Theory. Most of the questions you ask would be answered if you read the report. Apparently, the report is a fringe theory because you have chosen not to read the report and answer your own questions. The findings of the report are found here and here.WorldFacts (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't read the report and draw conclusions, WorldFacts. That is for, drumroll please, significant third party commentary to do! -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be combative (drum roll please) ... please treat worldfacts with the respect he/she deserves. Henrywinklestein (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If its a mainstream report, why is it not mentioned in the mainstream media? All I see are two fringe theory websites, where are your secondary sources? Also as Narson points out, we don't interpret reports that is the the business for third party commentary.  To interpret a report is original research and does not confirm to wiki policies ie Wikipedia does not provide a platform for you to publish your own thoughts on the matter.  You might also like to look at WP:RS and WP:NPOV, whilst you're at it try WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  Justin talk 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason there is "USS Liberty incident" is because there is controversy. To leave out the reasons of the controversy does a disservice to the readers.  To leave out the data is unfair to the readers.  15thSt (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, Worldfacts has been demanding the blocking of some party for removing CasualObservers comment on this talk page, an indef block. I shall provide him with this link. An apt example of why one should assume good faith and not go on rants about blocking people hrm? I am assuming, of course, you don't mean that you personally want yourself blocked indef for what is obviously a mistake? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * May I intrude with a point here again? It is very difficult to see how the intent behind the policy of WP:FRINGE, to keep ufos and weirdo theories off wiki, can allow us to use that policy to challenge the use of the Moorer report, given the careers, background and institutional standing of those associated with it. Fairer is the request that Secondary Sources, as per policy, be privileged, and that the Moorer Report be vetted for this article only when Secondary Sources are available. This however sets up, unless I am mistaken, an internal contradiction with the history of the article. For a good deal of its footnoting refers us to Primary sources. One cannot hold the Moorer Report hostage as a primary source, and yet write the page using primary Government documents. The only distinction that remains valid is 'official' versus 'unofficial' primary documents.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That the page is utter crap (and it is) is because in the past such things have been allowed to go into the article with little complaint. That it is already hideously over reliant on primary sources and OR and synthesis and dodgy non-peer reviewed websites is not a reason to shoe horn more in, but a reason for someone to attack the article with a weed wacker and citation needed tags. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 19:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * True. But rather than worry about the Moorer report, one should call all round for a cease-fire, an agreement on principles re consistency in applying WP:RS policy on primary and secondary sources. When the ship is torpedoed several times and shot up all over, the priority for commander and crew is no longer defending it from one or two pot-shots, but devoting efforts to mending the damage. As long as this structural defect is not vigorously remedied, opposition to the Moorer Report's inclusion is undermined, on principle.I.e. the appearance is that one piece of material is denied inclusion despite the massive precedent set by other material, already included, which violates those very policies adduced to exclude the former. Perhaps you should open up a section vetting willingness by all customary editors for a rewiew of principles like this. It seems pretty basic policy. Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WorldFacts/"Henrywinkelstein", please review the discussions above. The concern raised by a number of editors is that the mention of the Moorer "investigation" and the Boston "affadavit" violates 'WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE: In the future, whenever you feel compelled to type the words "what is the basis for the removal of sourced material" or "no policy violations have been raised", instead, re-read this comment, and restrain your fingers from typing the obvious falsehood. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The nature of this "investigation" is entirely unknown.
 * 2) It has received no attention from reliable, third party sources; therefore, it not only violates WP:V, but it also violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.
 * 3) It includes claims about living people that cannot be verified, as they are based on unrecorded conversations alleged to have taken place with people who are now dead, and who in turn allegedly made claims about conversations they had with third parties. It therefore also violates WP:BLP.

Jayjg - Addressing your 3 points above:
 * 1) The nature of this investigation is no longer unknown. On January 9th, 2004, in the Houston Chronicle, Adm. Thomas Moorer himself describes the nature of the investigation. You can read it here. Search for the string "Some dis". In his own words, Adm. Thomas Moorer says: "Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. " That is the nature of the investigation.
 * 2) The Houston Chronicle published an article by Admiral Thomas Moorer called "Betrayal behind Israeli attack on U.S. ship", on January 9th, 2004. In this article, the Admiral discusses the investigation, and the fact that the findings were presented on Capital Hill. Let's count: 1) The findings of the Moorer Commission in report form is a source which can be found here. 2) The Findings have been entered into the congressional Record, this can be found here and is continued here. 3) The Admiral discusses his investigation in an article from the Houston Chronicle. A reproduction of this article can be found here. So, we have the findings, their entry in the Congressional Record and the admiral discussing his investigation in the Houston Chronicle on January 9th, 2004, along with commentary describing the nature of the investigation.
 * 3) Your third point is specious, at best and a red herring at worst. A great deal of Wikipedia is based on knowledge from the deceased. Authors for articles they reference are also deceased in many cases. Does someone's death automatically invalidate someone elses commentary, by definition, in Wikipedia? Niether Captian Ward nor Admiral Kidd are alive at this time. Therefore, there is NO violation of WP:BLP, since niether of them are living. What matters is that the Moorer Investigation included an affidavit from Captain Ward Boston. An actual PDF Copy of the Affidavit signed by the Captain is found here. Signed and sworn by Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAG (RET.), Senior Counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry. The Captain's reputation speaks for itself. Look it up right on Wikipedia right here.


 * All three of your points are addressed. Capt Ward Boston died recently, but his affidavit is available. I will now proceed to add in not one, but two recent entries deleted by you and/or Narson countless times.


 * Lastly, you continue to delete entries based on "Talk consensus", but there doesn't appear to be a consensus in your favor. Wayne, HenryWinklestien, CasualObserver'48, 15thSt, PR and Nishidani all appear, in varying degrees, to accept the contents of the Moorer Report. Narson, Justin, Ken and Jayjg do not. If consensus were to be drawn upon by numbers alone, allowing the addition of some contents from the Moorer Report is the consensus by 6 to 4. WorldFacts (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

JayJG --- exactly why are you being so combative ? why are you so set on censoring this information ? I have not been given an answer. I still do not see any clear "violation" 'WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. You "answered" the questions I posed by simply re-stating something that was originally unclear to many involved. This is censorship at it worse -- this is a legitimate source of information and Wiki is denegrating the US Sailors and Marines who lost their lives in an Israeli attack on a US Navy Vessel that was obviously sanctioned by the Israeli government with subsequent cover-up by the US Government. You sir are the one at issue here. Not Worldfacts nor myself. Stop the censorship.Henrywinklestein (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the edit you want in is the issue here. Please can you and WorldFacts stop accusing editors of 'censoring' or 'vandalism', trying to position yourselves as some great opressed martyr on the sword of truth is hardly condusive to anything. WorldFacts could just try discussing proposed edits here before trying to insert them, he choses not to. He choses to edit war. Instead he'd rather crusade around wiki about a comment he himself deleted. You say Jayjg and I are being combatative...yet I see no rebuke against WorldFacts chosen tactics of demanding indef blocks. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The trials and tribulations of "cut and paste" vs "copy and paste". CO'48's question is now restored in it's original location. I had never intended to remove it. That is clear from the fact that I added it back in several times. When I searched for who removed the question, I didn't even look at my changes - I had never intended to remove ANYTHING from this page. WorldFacts (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

a) Quoted source is the "Jewish Tribal Review", an acknowledged anti-semitic website see Michael Neumann, hardly either a reliable source or conforming to neutral point of view. b) is a conspiracy theory website. Again not a reliable source. c) You've been asked to provide reliable secondary sources but refuse to do so. d) As I showed above, there is virtually no reference to this report in the mainstream media. The Moorer report is a fringe theory and has no place in wikipedia. Justin talk 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

re: d) You are so wrong --- The Moorer report was the output of a collective group of highly decorated and reputable officers of the United States Military and US Foreign Service. Moorer was the bloody Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and CNO, General Raymond David was Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, Rear Admiral Strang was the Navy JAG. How are these men not "reliable sources".

re: C) Reliable secondary sources of information. The New Tork Times? MSNBC ?  Washington Post? Stars & Stripes ?  Explain to me how Stars & Stripes is not reliable.  Several edits ago I included references to Stars and Stripes --- and guess what --- good old boy JayJG snipped it right out because he doesn't like the findings that the Moorer Commission suggest. He censored it.

This has all become one big laughable joke. Shame on all of you for censoring and vandalising the proper edits made by several of us. Your actions should be reviewed by the Wiki Review Board and your licenses as editors should be revoked. You all do what you want to do - are stuck on it - and then wash your hands of it. What a joke.-- Henrywinklestein (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a copy of an article in the Houston Chronicle originally found here. This should take care of OR and RS. Wayne (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I cry, and will note the following: “Yet the ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack had far more effect on policy in Israel than America. Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do, would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal.  If America’s leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.”
 * It certainly illustrates why the Liberty Incident tends to be so censored by one set of editors. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * unsurprisingly is another conspiracy website.  Checking out the Wayback Machine here I can't find that article.  The more I hear single purpose accounts complaining of censorship and with naked emotional appeals, I become increasingly convinced this is a fringe issue; have you actually read WP:Fringe.  You've done nothing to convince anyone this is anything but a fringe theory and your actions only re-inforce that conviction.    Justin talk 09:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To me their little base appeals are a very obvious attempt to disguise their flimsy source material and an attempt to focus the shift onto editors, as they always have, by being incivil. I'd suggest they stop accusing other editors of vandalism over a content dispute, and using hyperbole about censorship and dead Americans. If they want consensus for an edit, they need to create a section on the talk page, put in a proposed edit. I'm sure we will all then look at it, advise them on various improvements or things that need to be changed and indeed what sources need to go where in the text for it to be acceptable in the article, if at all. Assuming they want to move towards a consensus edit and not just sit around trying to berate us for our wicked ways. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note on the article, it looks like a retraction by the chronicle (As their archives go back several months and supposedly it went after a month) or a misattributation by the conspiracy website. Also, if the link was correct, it was an editorial. I'd suggest you read around on the subject of the reliability of editorial vs actual stories. Opinion vs Fact. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way does it look like a retraction? I also found 82 other websites (so far) carrying the story that attribute it to the Houston chronicle with several noting they had written permission from the Chronicle for the reprint. I did find Cune Magazine carrying it without attribution which seems a RS and this copy which according to Wikipedia is a religious website so should be a RS for the articles existence in the Chronicle. It was an editorial written by Moorer himself explaining exactly what the commission was and how it investigated (i.e.: so is not opinion but an explanation of facts) which is exactly the information that some of you cite the lack of for not including the report. That the mainstream media chooses to censor the report is not reason enough for exclusion. It is indisputable that the report exists, that it was conducted by reputable experts, that it was submitted to Congress and that it contained the claims made for it. While not being suitable for the official investigations section it should at the very least have a summary in it's own section. It is of interest that A major State Department conference on the Liberty to finally settle the issue was held around the same time and broadcast on C-Span. Only those who supported the official story were invited. Experts (including Moorer) involved in previous investigations who supported a deliberate attack and Liberty survivors were not invited but turned up anyway and spoke from the audience during question time. All questions and answers involving survivors were cut from the program aired. I believe the legal term is similar fact evidence to account for the mainstream media avoiding the subject. It is interesting that in statements Cristol made at this conference he mentioned two survivors by name as supporting the official account who turned out to be in the audience and subsequently told the conference Cristol was lying about them. Wayne (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means share the links Wayne. Though, again, an editorial by Moorer is not really third party coverage/secondary, nor are editorials that great. So, expect that to be an issue. I find a lot referencing Moorers previous actions (Something happened around 1985 or something? Some stuff about 1998 and nerve gas too. So the links would be useful. I should emphasise at this point that FRINGE does not call for, as I read it, the excluding of the information. It calls for a decent source, that is it. I also think that regardless, we do need to look into and improve the citations in the article as a whole (For both points of view). To explain why it looked like a retraction or something a little hinky to me, if you delete something you have published, it is usually for a reason. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson --- the focus of my last comment would not be on the editors if you and JayJG acted reasonably and in good faith. You've not listened to reason. You've made up your minds and whatever anyone does will NEVER be good enough to suit your self serving needs.

What is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? How are the CNO, Joint Chief of Staff, Assistant Cmmdt of the USMC and a Navy JAG not reliable sources ?? Explain it to us as if you were a first grade teacher so that you could reach those of us who may be too dense to understand you. Henrywinklestein (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Self serving needs? I assure you, I didn't attack the liberty. And with that bad faith attack, I think I shall simply cease responding to your jibes. Edited to add: One note, fringe is Jayjg and Justin's concern (I can see where they are coming from on that, I am just unconvinced). I share Jayjg's concerns over WP:UNDUE with how world facts put it in, which was also a totally unneutral edit (Not to mention low quality). I also have concerns about ensuring we do have a source of some quality for this, of a reliable third party commentary style preferably...concerns I believe Justin and Jayjg share. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? How are the CNO, Joint Chief of Staff, Assistant Cmmdt of the USMC and a Navy JAG not reliable sources ??Henrywinklestein (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

This is ridiculous, your secondary source is an editorial written by Moorer himself in the Houston Chronicle. WP:RS calls for INDEPENDENT sources not something written by the author himself. Justin talk 22:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary Break
I've done a comparison of the article's treatment of Moorer's "report" (4 top US military people) with Cristol's book (one man's opinion and likely ideological polemic, as best I can see). The difference is enormous, with Moorer's few mentions being badly treated even when they're not badly distorted - even presented in reverse. Furthermore, judging by the section below, there could be really serious problems in Cristol's argument. We've had multiple demands to edit to policy - it's high time that this was done. PRtalk 14:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference being numerous secondary sources with Cristol's book and none provided for Moorer. Despite repeated requests for such sources all that has been produced in response is emotional polemics.  So no that edit should be added because it is giving undue weight to a fringe theory.  Justin talk 15:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Prove to me that Cristol's book is well regarded. Google Scholar gives just a single citation to it - that's extraordinarily low.
 * Then look at Google - and Cristol's book is widely thought to be fraudulent. Really serious questions, the claims he makes about himself, the claims others make about him, the claims in his book. No such doubts about Moorer.
 * Then let's look at our WP article - where we see many edits such as [this deletion, which comes with a highly authoritative looking summary: "read this carefully. The reasons are WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Is that clear? The Moorer report is no more an "investigation" than Cristol's book."
 * Article edited to policy, then? No - just examine and compare every mention of the "Moorer Investigation" with every mention of "The Liberty Incident" book.
 * Start with the 2003 Moorer report and examine how we've treated it - this is an investigation by 4 top-ranking US military people: "Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), General of Marines Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia)."
 * What do we see? Nothing quoted from his report, and the mentions he does get falsify his position.
 * 1) Moorer's current position is badly mis-stated in the lead: "... some former U.S. government officials, including ... Admiral Thomas Hinman Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations ... did not publicly dispute Israel's claim that the attack had been ... a disastrous mistake,"
 * 2) Moorer's only dissent is in a section "Details in dispute", almost ridiculously marginal in significance. Worse, the opposite case is immediately put (from the suspects, not even from any commentator!) in more than twice as many words.: "Admiral Tom Moorer stated that the Liberty was the most identifiable ship in the US Navy. Israel says the identification as the El Quseir was made by the torpedo boats while the Liberty was enveloped in smoke and was based on a guide to Arab fleets that did not include U.S. vessels."
 * 3) The Moorer report only appears in section "Sources claiming attack was deliberate", sub-section "Other Sources", his report 12th of 14. No reference to who he is and it uses the very understated title, misleading the reader as to what is in there.: 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
 * Now, compare that with the treatment we give Cristol's book (Florida bankruptcy judge, retired naval aviator, "officer of the Judge Advocate General in the U.S. military", whatever those mean).
 * Cristol is mentioned 7 times and at every stage, the article treat his book as authoritative (which commentators clearly don't believe).
 * 1) Cristol's position is made clear, with direct quotes: "Cristol argues that the 'documentary record' strongly indicated that Kidd 'supported the validity of the findings of the Court of Inquiry to his dying day.'"
 * 2) Cristol's service is described and his position made clear: "In particular, A. Jay Cristol, who also served as an officer of the Judge Advocate General in the U.S. military, suggests that Boston was responsible in part for the original conclusions of the Court of Inquiry, and that by later declaring that they were false he has admitted to "lying under oath.""
 * 3) Cristol's qualifications are listed, his position (perhaps with further original research on our part backing his beliefs?), and his book is treated as authoritative: revelations elicited by FOI "by Florida bankruptcy judge and retired naval aviator Jay Cristol. ... The NSA-translated tapes ... "identified as an Egyptian ship",... demonstrate confusion as to the identification of the target ship. (e.g. control tower to helicopter 815 at 1310Z "The first thing is for you to clarify what nationality they are. Notify me immediately.") Cristol adds: "The tapes confirm that the helicopter pilot observed the flag at 3:12 p.m." (1312Z) which would coincide with the audio tapes the Israel Air Force released to Cristol of the radio transmissions before, during and after the attack. The English translations of the Israeli Air Force tapes are published in Appendix 2 of Cristol's book The Liberty Incident.
 * 4) Cristol is treated as authoritative, he is credited with a significant FOI request, his "qualification" is misleadingly over-stated and only close attention to the details shows that his evidence is largely irrelevant to the question: "tapes ... released .. as a result of [FOI] ... by Judge and author A. Jay Cristol .... Israeli helicopter pilots who were not involved in the attack ... informed their control tower"
 * 5) Cristol's book is the 2nd of 10 on the subject. (Also mentioned in text).
 * 6) Cristol's web-sites appear 2nd, 11th and 13th (of 13) in section "Sources claiming attack was a mistake"
 * What's all this tell us? Well, it tells us that this article has huge UNDUE problems, and is most certainly not written to policy. PRtalk 18:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And? Sorry PR, but saying 'LOOK LOOK BAD THINGS' is all well and good, but that doesn't then mean we shoehorn more shit in regardless. The article is in a poor state, so who cares if we add more low quality dubiously sourced info? Is that really the attitude we want to take? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually when I looked I find numerous secondary sources quoting Cristol list here (yes I know its the authors website but I'm not claiming it as a secondary source just a list), I found none for Moorer.  The only secondary source we've seen claimed for Moorer turned out to be an editorial written by Moorer himself.  So instead of launching a polemic against editors who don't see the need for Moorer to be included, provide some secondary sources and propose a suitable edit.  Thats how talk works, simply slagging off other editors is not the best technique to persuade them.  And like Narson I'd point out there is a ton of crap in this article but that ain't going to be sorted whilst SPA edit war to shoe horn more crap in.  Justin talk 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't necessarily that I don't see a need for Moorer to be included, merely that if we are going to add more information to a conspiracy theory page, we should cite it properly and it should be written in a suitable style. The issue is that without third party sources it become difficult to judge where things should fit in. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cristol is credibly accused of outright fraud. O'Keefe quotes him as repeatedly claiming there are 13 reports exonerating Israel (is that true?), when in fact, 2 of the 13 claimed reports are non-existent, 9 were not investigations/or don't exonerate Israel as Cristol claims, leaving only 1 Israeli investigation and the original rushed US Court of Inquiry, now apparently fatally wounded by its own chief legal council.
 * And it gets worse - because we can see Cristol doing something similar at his books web-site, where only clips 1,2,3 and 13 unambiguously state that Cristol is right - and even McCain's seems puzzlingly imprecise!
 * With this level of concern there is no way we should be endorsing Cristol's account in the article so heartily (and side-lining Moorer so dismissively). Jayjg tells us constantly that we must watch carefully for UNDUE and NPOV - and this article is clearly hopeless on both counts. PRtalk 11:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We're asking for credible secondary sources to support your proposed edit to include the Moorer Inquiry at an appropriate level. Where are they?  Justin talk 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PR, please stop soapboxing, and provide reliable secondary sources that discuss the Moorer report. That wouldn't, by the way, include an editorial by Moorer himself. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty - Consensus - Summary of Issues
On this day, November 11, 2008, Veterans day, it seems most appropriate to analyse the 2 months or so of debate concerning the inclusion of contents from the Moorer Report into the USS Liberty incident Wikipedia Page. During these 2 months there has been a great deal of debate as the appropriateness of this entry. Having sat out on the side lines to allow others to discuss the subject of the Moorer Reports appropriateness I now take it upon myself to summarize the various points made and how those of you who chose to comment on this Subject are leaning, thus attempting to define a consensus.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Words in Italics were inserted by me to add clarity, or to correct spelling.

One issue below is generalized as: "Without a third party source, the Moorer Report should not be part of the USS LIberty Incident Page." This issue is derived from the following:


 * Has any news firm of repute picked up the Moorer report? They might have included a synopsis that we can reference and write a brief summary of the report citing that? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

also


 * What you want to look for, WorldFacts, is reliable secondary sources that speak about the report....--Narson ~ Talk • 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

also


 * We're asking for credible secondary sources to support your proposed edit to include the Moorer Inquiry at an appropriate level. Where are they? Justin talk 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

also


 * PR, please stop soapboxing, and provide reliable secondary sources that discuss the Moorer report. That wouldn't, by the way, include an editorial by Moorer himself. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue then, is: Without a third party source, the Moorer Report should not be part of the USS LIberty Incident Page. My response to this is simple:
 * a) The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry entry makes no reference to a third party source. This record is allowed to stand on it's own.
 * b) The Joint Chief of Staff's Report makes no reference to a third party source. This report is allowed to stand on it's own.
 * c) The Clark Cliffod Report makes no reference to a third party source. This report is allowed to stand on it's own.
 * d) The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony makes no reference to a third party source. This testimonry is allowed to stand on it's own.
 * e) The House Armed Services Committee Investigation makes no reference to a third party Source. This investigation is allowed to stand on it's own.
 * f) The NSA History Report makes no reference to a third party source. This report is allowed to stand on it's own.

Therefore, the notion that the Moorer Report must have a third party source as a prerequisite to inclusion on the USS Liberty incident page is a non sequitur. None of the reports above have a third party source, I fail to see why the Moorer report requires one.

The Joint Chief of Staff's Report does have a reference, somewhat, in that it references an article in the Daily Star, January 21, 2004. However, this article was written by Admiral Moorer himself. This reference is in the USS Liberty incident "Other Sources" list of links. It contradicts comments by both users Jayjg and  Justin. These comments are:


 * PR, please stop soapboxing, and provide reliable secondary sources that discuss the Moorer report. That wouldn't, by the way, include an editorial by Moorer himself. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

and


 * This is ridiculous, your secondary source is an editorial written by Moorer himself in the Houston Chronicle. WP:RS calls for INDEPENDENT sources not something written by the author himself. Justin talk 22:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

The link to this article has not been removed by either of the afore mentioned Wikipedia users. Yet, my attempts to use articles written by Admiral Moorer draw comments such as the two above.

The contradictions coming from those who wish to exclude the Moorer Report are extraordinary indeed!

Another issue which has been raised is "The Moorer Report is not a government investigation and therefore, not reputable. It is a fringe theory."

This issue is derived from the following:


 * Perhaps a solution is to add two sub-sections the "American Investigations" sub-section and title them "Government Investigations" and "Non-Government Investigations" respectively, or otherwise make it abundantly clear that the Moorer Commission was an independent, private citizen group; i.e., NOT a USG sanctioned commission.Ken (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also


 * I changed the title of both the American and Israeli investigations sub-sections to include the word "government" to classify the type of investigations each sub-section contains.Of course, this does not prevent somebody from adding a new sub-section for a different class of investigations, but it may help prevent misunderstanding about the type of investigations and reports contained in the current two sections.Ken (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the latter comment above, I actually created a third category, Independent American Investigations, and added my entry. As usual, these were removed, even when it satisfied the request by Ken above. My attempt at WP:AGF.

Also,


 * The Moorer report is no more an "investigation" than Cristol's or Bamford's books are. We don't list their work as "investigations" either. If there's anything of value in the report, work it into the body of the text. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is in error on this count. In the Houston Chronicle, on January 9th, 2004, Thomas Moorer explains the purpose of the Moorer Report. In this article, Admiral Moorer says: "Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. ". So, the Moorer Report was the result of an 'exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records". It was clearly an investigation. Note also the phrase: "we presented our findings on Capital Hill." These are the Congressional Record references I have referenced which are currently considered invalid references. But as I discussed above, at least I have references. The other reports above are allowed to stand alone. The Moorer report is the only one in which a few Wikipedia users are 'demanding' have a third party source.

Also,


 * We have a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador. I'd say their reputations alone make their investigation significant and it should have it's own section. The findings down't even lay specific blame anywhere but call for a new Naval enquiry with Congressional oversight which is the only way the Moorer findings can be refuted (or supported)... Wayne (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This notion is echoed here:


 * ...It is very difficult to see how the intent behind the policy of WP:FRINGE, to keep ufos and weirdo theories off wiki, can allow us to use that policy to challenge the use of the Moorer report, given the careers, background and institutional standing of those associated with it. Fairer is the request that Secondary Sources, as per policy, be privileged, and that the Moorer Report be vetted for this article only when Secondary Sources are available. This however sets up, unless I am mistaken, an internal contradiction with the history of the article. For a good deal of its footnoting refers us to Primary sources. One cannot hold the Moorer Report hostage as a primary source, and yet write the page using primary Government documents. The only distinction that remains valid is 'official' versus 'unofficial' primary documents.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, the rebuttal to the notion that "The Moorer Report is not a government investigation and therefore, not reputable. It is a fringe theory."
 * a) Is stated above in two forms. The first, by the Houson Chronical article from January 9th, 2004, which says in part: " "Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. ".
 * b) The second rebuttal concerns the notion that the report is not reputable or is a fringe theory. "We have a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador. I'd say their reputations alone make their investigation significant and it should have it's own section." Moreover, the investigation was quite thorough, so no 'theories' are discussed in the report, only actual results of the investigation are part of the Findings of the Moorer Commission.
 * c) Lastly, the irony here is that some users are requiring of the Moorer report entry that which is missing from each and every other report listed: A Secondary source to vet the Report.

The notion that the Moorer Report is not a government investigation, when it's leaders were ALL former members of the military and one ambassador, and therefore reputable members of government, is absurd. Their reputations as government officials speak for themselves. Their Reputations as government officials also speaks volumes for the notion that the report is a Fringe Theory.

Another issue in this debate is: "Quotes from the reports illustrate the POV of the investigators or report authors."

This issue is derived from the following:


 * I believe readers are better served by presenting a brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report with sparse use of quoted material to illustrate (i.e., not extroll or elaborate) the POV of the investigator(s) or report author(s). Ken (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

also,


 * You already include reports that are nothing more than partisan statements in the investigations section so the claim you don't want to give the Moorer Commission undue weight is ridiculous. Wayne (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the issue that: "Quotes from the reports illustrate the POV of the investigators or report authors."

The entry I had had 2 quotes. No more then the entries for the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry, the CIA Intelligence Memorandums and the Clark Clifford Report. My entry also quoted statements from those involved in the report, or subjects of the investigation. Why are quotes from the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry, the CIA Intelligence Memorandums and the Clark Clifford Report allowed, but explicitely cited quotes from the Moorer Report unacceptable? Why are Quotes from the aforementioned reports acceptable, but when I quote the report, twice, I receive comments such as: "I believe readers are better served by presenting a brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report...". It is interesting that the request continues: "brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report with sparse use of quoted material to illustrate (i.e., not extroll or elaborate) the POV of the investigator(s) or report author(s)." I did use sparse quotes. 2 of them. What grounds are there for removing my entry when my entry does exactly as one of those removing the entry suggests?

Any reasonable person considering the items above would conclude that the exclusion of commentary from the Moorer Report for the various reasons sited above is wrong based on the information provided.

Users User:WorldFacts, User:Wayne, User:Nishidani, User:15thST, User:CasualObserver'48, User:HenryWinklestein and User:PR are all in agreement, to one degree or another, that removal of the entries for the various reasons stated is uncalled for. They agree, to varying degrees, that the entries have a place on the USS Liberty incident page.

Users Jayjg, Ken, Narson , and Justin appear to wish to exlude the entry, again, for their various reasons.

By numbers, we have 7 ayes and 4 nays. The aye's have it.

If I have misrepresented anyone's view, please let me know.

I have modified my entries by adding explicit references and added this new entry to this page.WorldFacts (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have somewhat misrepresented my position. Generally, I have no problem with inclusion of well-founded statements about the Moorer Commission, its report and a few statements summarizing, or quoting in a summarizing fashion, the Commission's findings.


 * My major concern is that the Moorer Commission's work not be presented in a manner that makes it appear like some type of official or government sanctioned investigation; i.e., placed or presented in a manner that gives it undue weight relative to official government investigations and reports.Ken (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Soap boxing does not help, as several editors have pointed out independent secondary sources are required to overcome issues about WP:FRINGE. Similarly well founded statements that do not present the Moorer commission with undue weight.  Neither are the personal attacks against various editors warranted and the naked appeal to emotion is doing you no favours.  Present a proposed edit, supported by suitable secondary sources (which is not by the way an editorial written by Moorer himself).  Your current path will likely earn you a block for disruption.  Justin talk 22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the emotive bollocks, wikipedia is not a vote. A bunch of SPA don't get to run an agenda just because they may be numerous on a certain page. I would also note that Worldfacts once again put the edit in, despite recognising there is discussion and objections to the edit on the talk page. He seems to be wanting to have his cake and eat it, both engage in dialogue and edit war, which is just not on. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good Grief, how can it be claimed that the governments of Israel on the US have a NPOV on this?15thSt (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit like a strawman argument. By giving us a position that is itself absurd (though one we never took) he seeks to dismiss the other concerns by association. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This may be helpful. A quick Google search revealed two secondary sources that discuss Admiral Moorer's views, and to a very limited extent, aspects of the Moorer Commission's findings that mirror Moorer's views.  Perhaps one or both of these would be suitable for for WF's usage as secondary source citations, or provide clues leading to other sources; e.g., "The Link" is cited in the JVL article, written by Oren.


 * http://www.adl.org/israel/uss.asp
 * http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html


 * Also, a comprehensive search at a public library may uncover a few more sources (newspaper articles, etc.) for consideration.Ken (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The ADL article is interesting, though I can't see those who support deliberate attack idea wanting it in, as it does rather depict the survivors as, at best, lackies in anti-semitic and anti-Israeli activities. It also only covers moorer in passing really, mostly it deals with Boston's claims at the press conference. They do provide (Though I havn't looked into the websites to establish how reliable they are) sources for Moorer's beliefs certainly, and that he chaired a comittee. Though it doesn't explicitly state the outcome of the Moorer Comission. If someone can provide the full name of the report on my talk page, I will do a search through the uni journals et al to find information. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty request for Comments

 * I have made several attempts to have an entry concerning the Moorer Report Findings added as a government investigation as well as an independent investigation. Of the 7 American Investigations listed, not a single one has a newspaper reference. Yet all my attempts to add contents from the  Findings of the Moorer Commission are deleted for presumed violations of various WP: policies. Most important, is that fact that the problem is the removal of the entry. There is never an attempt to edit the entry to the liking of those removing the entry. Only removal, i.e., censorship, seems to be the Method of operation for those who disagree with the entry. This debate has been going on for about 2 months and I see no resolution in sight. While a consensus was attempted above, I am still having the same editors claim that the entry violates one or some other WP policy, even when several different versions of the entry are added to the USS Liberty incident page. Although several reports described show that they do not have references, my Moorer Report entry is deleted because it doesn't have references. In other words, those reports have no references, but those removing the Moorer Report entry insist that IT must have a reference. The argument here is that the Moorer Report presents a FRINGE theory. An investigation conducted by a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador and signed by them hardly qualifies as a Fringe theory, yet this is how it is maligned. And due to this, it is then removed since no News Paper Articles can be found which discuss the Moorer commission directly or it's findings.  An Edit War, albeit slow, is in progress and I cannot see it ending until the report is accepted based on the knowledge, reputation and merits of those Senior Military Officers and the Ambassador who conducted the investigation. WorldFacts (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I consider this claim of censorship and other things (claims I have a personal stake in the attack?) to be bad faith personal attacks. Don't expect my co-operation. I would also note that this appears to be an attempt for a RFC/U through the back door of a more generic RFC. I'd further suggest WorldFacts refactor his comments and reconsider his actions, they do not seem compatable with RfC ideals so he has likely chosen the wrong avenue. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)