Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 7

1RR Probation
Due to the continued edit warring and the attempt to introduce fringe material against consensus I've suggested at WP:AN/I that this article be placed under a 1RR probation see. I highlighted WorldFact's recent edit warring in particular noting that the first thing he did on his return was to edit war once again. I can't see mediation working or the article improving whilst disruptive edits are taking place. Justin talk 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

War Crimes Committed Against US Military Personnel, June 8, 1967
I have come across a report of "War Crimes Committed Against U.S. military Personnel" which was submitted to the Honorable Secretary of the Army in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to Department of Defense Directive Number 5810.01B (29 March 2004).

This report was filed by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc. a California non-profit corporation, recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt veterans organization, acting on behalf of the surviving crewmembers of USS Liberty.

I would like to discuss how best to include this Report in the USS Liberty Page - perhaps in a section called "Accusations of War Crimes Committed by Israel". --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is already included in the recent developments section. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Soviet ship
I read an article a while ago about a Soviet ship that stumbled across the Liberty as it was being attacked. According to the article the reason the Israeli's stopped attacking the Liberty was because there was now witnesses they couldn't get away with attacking. The article was trying to make the point that the Israeli's were going to blame the attack on Israel to justify the Golan heights attack. Was there any truth to this story? Was it really a false flag operation? Wouldn't have been the first time if that was the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 12:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for general discussion, Q&A or pontificating about the attack itself. Rather, it's supposed to be a place for content contributors to discuss matters regarding the article's content and editing.Ken (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fairplay and Balance in the Application of WP Policy
A recent contribution/editing attempt by Tinosa, for the Detail in Dispute section, Israeli Aircraft Markings point, involved a words and image similarity comparison of the delta wing Dassault Mirage III and Soviet Mig-21 aircraft.

The contribution was reverted by Narson on the grounds that it appeared as OR and lacked a cited reliable source -- a reasonable challenge and fair application of WP policy. In a like manner, and in the interest of fairplay and balance, I submit that the same WP policy should apply to the long-standing original statement, without the Mig-21 comparison, that too is not cited and appears to contain hearsay and OR. Simply because an uncited contribution, with apparent OR content, is recent instead of long-standing should not somehow render one more or less subject to the application of WP policy.Ken (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Acctually, it was not a revert I took too lightly, I asked for advice on the wikipedia IRC channel for advice. I would agree that the statement itself should be 'put up or shut up' on it. Delta wing aircraft look like delta wing aircraft, not sure what is remarkable about that. My intent was not to assert that the statement should stand without the cites, my edit was to assert that the edits put in didn't satisfy the criteria for keeping the comment and didn't want the impression being given that the paragraph was cited. I'd suggest that you apply BRD here, Ken. Remove it. If you are reverted, we can discuss why and see where that gets us. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I commented in a previous thread, I'm off the boldly act then discuss merry-go-round. A mature and rational approach is to present an idea for discussion, discuss the idea, and then act (or not act) based on the result of discussion or lack thereof.  The boldly act, revert, complain about the revert, act again, Ad infinitum is silly and a great waste of time.


 * If general agreement can be reached about the elimination of all long-standing, uncited factual statements, then I'll gladly do the work to remove them; otherwise, I'd rather remain on the sidelines, occasionally visit to see if any progress has been made, and post a comment whenever I spot something that appears odd or inconsistent in the application of WP policy; e.g., reverting uncited factual statements apparently dependent on whether or not they are recent v/s long-standing.Ken (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the problm is that very rarely do we get BRD on the page Ken. We get BRRRRRDRRRDRDRDDDDRRRDRRRDDD or something of its ilk. As for removing the statements, Ken, if they don't have cite, I'd drop them. People can re-add them with cites if they want. Though hopefully the mediation might start and we can redo the page as a whole. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the noble and well-meaning attempt at mediation appears to be stalled, if not completely deadlocked. It's difficult to mediate when some of the key players don't wish to participate.Ken (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A key requirement of an acceptable mediator must be someone prepared to help editors abide with policy, and abide by agreement/consensus.
 * We have a 5-2 agreement not to include a particular clip - and yet it's still in the article. 3 of the people who almost certainly want it out (though only one dared say as much!) have been blocked (justifiably, but on frustration impelled offenses) with a highly chilling effect. It wouldn't be acceptable to use this clip if even one editor thought it a straightforward lie - in this case, we have at least two editors thinking it's a lie.
 * And the source of the disputed clip would never be acceptable anyway, being racist and POV to the point of, and beyond, wilful distortion. Were the other sources with those faults removed, the article would be dramatically different and a credit to the project instead of a disgrace. We need a mediator who actually believes in having a good article, based on good, reliable, sources - and would even be prepared, if necessary, to stand up to bullying. PRtalk 09:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who has been blocked? Cla68 (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WorldFacts was blocked for 3RR for 24h and HenryWinklestein has been indeffed for being a disruptive account and a consistant failure to AGF. Not sure who the third one spoken of is, unless PR speaks of his own blocking for breach of NLT. Ah, I think he means Wayne, who also got a block for 3RR back in November. The only block in force that I am aware of is Henry's indef. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Caption for Image at Article Head
The caption below the image at the article's head, recently added by Cla68, is a bit confusing. The image shows the ship as it appeared on June 9, 1967, during American Navy rescue operations, not June 8, 1967 after the attack. Also, when the photo was taken, the ship was nowhere near the Sinai Peninsula.

By the way, there is now a series of previously unpublished photos taken on June 9, 1967, by a Time-Life photographer Bill Ray, during rescue operations. See them here: http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=47b6f3f462836686&q=%22uss+liberty%22+source:life&usg=__67-_qCPfQhWjF_XssxWVkT73RZs=&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522uss%2Bliberty%2522%2Bsource:life%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26ie%3DUTF-8&um=1 Interestingly, the date and place given by either Life or Google is Malta, June 16, 1967. The place and date are obviously erroneous -- not exactly a reliable information source.Ken (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you change the image caption. I was just trying to make it better, but if you can improve on it, please feel free.  If there are any more public domain images that can be added to the article, that would be great. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find no fault with the image's presentation and caption box per se; thus, it's not a matter of improvement. Rather, it's a matter of presenting correct date and place information, within the caption box, for the image.  In the scheme of things, it is a minor issue in an article with major problems.Ken (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

God that kept the LIBERTY afloat?
I know that Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood was present and has valuable perspective to add to this event, but is this really an appropriate comment (especially given that he is an ordained minister, it seems like proselyting)? I don't think it adds anything to the article. In fact, it makes a nonreligious person such as myself roll his eyes and think "too bad God didn't keep the Liberty from being attacked altogether, or at least spare the 25 who died from the torpedo that God directed at the frame". I won't attempt to remove that sentence because I haven't contributed anything else to the article and wouldn't want to pop in and make a change like that. It's a distracting line though that doesn't add to the previous sentence about the torpedo hitting the frame, and I propose it be removed. Cvislay (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The bit about Lockwood appears like somebody pasted it into the article without much attention to whether or not it fit contextually, or otherwise enhanced the article's factual content.


 * Generally, the sections at the end of the article are full of belief-oriented and speculative statements made by various people. Thus, I see no harm in throwing god or gods into the speculative mix -- as long as the source is cited and it's a good contextual fit.Ken (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What is holding up this article?
The decision on Boston/ADL inclusion was 5 to 2 against the inclusion of this ADL quote. Can someone explain to me what it's still doing in the article? PRtalk 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a popularity contest, there is no consensus to change but I rather suspect you know that. The only thing holding back the article is someone frustrated attempts at mediation.  Justin talk 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two editors believe that this clip is a straightforward lie (as can be seen by examining the primary source). It is difficult to imagine any form of "consensus" which permits 2 other editors to over-ride such a major concern.
 * And consensus of the RS is that Israel threatened to attack the USS Liberty at some time on the 7th June and did so on the 8th June. (Some sources omit mention of the threat, claiming only that Israel knew it was a US ship). PRtalk 13:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Objection
I strong object to PR retrospectively changing his comments on a Talk Page after people have responded to them. That is out of order, it distorts what people say in response. Justin talk 10:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors may check this diff in order to see that the changes I've made do not change the sense of my contribution in any fashion. Nobodys response has been distorted.
 * Editors may also check and discover that my claim that this article is in total defiance of policy and RS is amply demonstrated by the evidence produced, and there has been no attempt to deal with either the specifics or the generality of the work I've done. That's on top of other really serious problems, such as the inclusion of this clip. PRtalk 12:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Retrospectively changing talk page comments is completely out of order, full stop. A talk page is supposed to be a record of discussions, if you go back and change things it isn't.  And no you haven't demonstrated any such thing and the only person actively preventing any progress on this article would be the editor who frustrated mediation attempts. Justin talk 12:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations - the ridiculous situation at this article has gone on for so long and so many editors have been burned there's nobody left to challenge policy being made up on the fly! Nor anyone to demand the "rebuttal" we were promised! PRtalk 13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy is not being made up on the fly, WP:TALK "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. ". Rebuttal, you've had it explained to you ad nauseum, yet you still come back with the same tired worn arguments. Justin talk 13:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight to "non-accident theories" being conspiracy theories
I noticed, at the end of the article, a hugh list of "Conspiracy Theories" on various subjects that are totally unrelated to the USS Liberty Incident or anything similar. I realize some editors here consider anything that's not in-line with the official history as being a "conspiracy theory", but I fail to understand the need for a hugh list of various and unrelated conspiracy theories at the end of the article. The only reason I can guess for having the list is an attempt to greatly emphasize (i.e., WP:UNDUE WEIGHT) the POV that all "non-accident theories" are conspiracy theories.Ken (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At least for me, it isn't anything that goes against the official story. It is any hypothesis that requires a large number of people acting in concert to supress information and achieve a goal that makes a conspiracy theory. That being said, I'm not sure why th list at the end has gotten so huge. Certainly the Maine is stretching it a bit far. Panay Incident is quite apt and should remain, the Reuben James is not, for example. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 12:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Narson, I believe you're referring to the "See Also" list, not the "Conspiracy Theories" list (in the form of a table) at the end (bottom) of the article -- after "Other Sources". Although, I agree that the "See Also" list is a bit silly too.Ken (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. The Conspiracy Theories list is a template, and the USS Liberty Incident appears within the "False Flag Operations" section of the list.  Not sure why a False Flag operation per se is considered a conspiracy theory; albeit, a conspiracy may be involved in the commission of a False Flag operation.Ken (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps spmeone who knows how the Template system works could organise a new template for the "False Flag Theories" part on it's own? This could replace the current template and avoid problems with linking the Liberty incident to other inappropriate events as is currently the case. Wayne (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See also: "Other international incidents involving the U.S. military:" is most undue section and will delete. The impact of them ends up being trivializing the incident. So I question the relevance of any other incident not involving Israel. 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "Other international incidents involving the U.S. military" section is silly, but I do not agree with limiting to only incidents involving Israel. After all, two parties are involved here: America and Israel.  Thus, at least, it seems reasonable to include any incident similar to the USS Liberty attack that involved either America or Israel.Ken (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NSA's public website reorganization
The NSA reorganized its public website. The main page for USS Liberty attack material is now located at http://www.nsa.gov/public%5Finfo/declass/uss%5Fliberty/ -- links within the main page are changed too.Ken (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why bother making such very limited information available? A search on NSA and Liberty indicates that NSA was never interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether you're referring to my post or the NSA's information. Regardless, the fact that people at NSA put effort into posting the information shows it has not abandoned interest in the matter; although, the scope and depth of its interest may not be to everyone's satisfaction.Ken (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest News
Of interest is that Wayne Madsen has recently published an account from U.S. intelligence sources claiming that the INS Dakar was sunk in a classified joint U.S.-British mission in retaliation for Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty. You can read the story here. I've been reading this guys work for years and found him to be pretty reliable overall. Wayne (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I'm not convinced at all that is a reliable source by wiki standards. I will be making a post on the reliable sources noticeboard.  Justin talk 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Madsen makes lots of claims, but provides very little information about his references and sources. I recall reading somewhere that Madsen died late last year.  If so, this article must be by a ghostwriter.Ken (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of his claims seem a little...well, blood cult Christians? The US government sent itself Anthrax? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 16:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Dakar was 24 years old, built to wartime standards in 1943 and anything might have happened to it. Or perhaps we did sink it in revenge. That doesn't stop most people thinking Israel deliberately attacked the Liberty. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Most people' probably don't even know about the Liberty Incident at all. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 16:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being even more cynical: 'Most people' don't know much about anything that occurs beyond the end of the nose on their face.Ken (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RS all say "not an accident"
There are 6 books that cover "accident/not an accident" for the USS Liberty incident. Each of these books, bar one, states that the Israelis knew they were attacking the American ship. And each of these 5 other books is much better regarded than the pro-accident book from Cristol, the hard-copy form of which gets no citations whatsoever one citation. (Bamford and Bregman are well respected with other well-cited books). The Loftus book is very pro-Israel - it says "Yes, Israel was right to attack the American ship". Loftus's book is probably a bit light-weight and "popular" - and yet, it's still much better respected than Cristol's. So when will this article be written to the reliable sources and to policy? When will the hard-line pro-Israel and pro-accident line (taken only by Cristol) be side-lined, as almost completely unimportant? PRtalk 09:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PR and others: If you want to write an article that supports your belief or theory, then WP is not the place to do it. The challenge here is to write a factually rich, well-cited, well-balanced and NPOV article, not an article intent on proving or elaborating opinions about whether the attack was premeditated or not.Ken (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I want an article that is written to policy, using the RSs available. The current state of this article is absurdly distant from that situation, where one source (poorly regarded by other specialists - to put it mildly, and cited by almost nobody) gets absurdly UNDUE for the material he chooses to present. Cristol's claim that this was an accident deserves only a footnote - and perhaps not even that.
 * Cristol's book even looks like propaganda, devoting an entire chapter (p.141 Chapter 11 - DID DAYAN ORDER IT?) to proving the irrelevant (if not forged) "fact" that Dayan was having a picnic on the West Bank in the middle of this war he so badly wanted. This while the attack on the Liberty was going on, and while his battle-tired armour was racing from Sinai to the Golan Heights to start a completely new attack. PRtalk 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One solution I've espoused and often followed, since my participation, is to limit sources for this article to primary sources (e.g., offical investigation reports and testimony), the two official History Reports (secondary sources) produced by the Americans and Israelis, and direct factual quotes by eyewitnesses. By doing this, it should effectively mute arguments about who/what is and who/what is not a reliable or unbiased secondary source.Ken (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All of PR's arguments boil down to WP:UNDUE WEIGHT being given to the incident being an accident. Basically he is correct and this can be fixed (eventually). You are doing yourself a diservice by pushing a one step solution of mass change which will never get consensus. Work with us to balance the article one step at a time. Wayne (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree less a heated approach might be more beneficial. At the same time, the apparent undue weight is currently on the talk page because some editors refuse to accept RSs which would move the article closer to NPOV, imo. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When we are talking accident what do we mean? I can't imagine anyone argues the planes were flying about, accidentally released ordinance and it just happened to hit the Liberty...surely the issue is deliberte versus mistake? As for reliable sources, the issue becomes the scattershot approach PR takes. He mixes up reliable source with dubious sources. He attacks the use of general pro-Israeli or anti-anti semitic websites while espousing the use of USSLiberty.org, a very specific single purpose website. Nt that such sites don't have a use, but we overuse them on the page for general statements of fact. Considering how much has been released now direct from the US government, we seem to be using the USS Liberty website as a way to present primary sources as secondary sometimes. Which brings us onto the thing Ken brought up, Primary vs Secondary. While primary is not completely verbotten, it has issues. Its use in the article would have to be very careful and very uniform, and /only/ for the uncntroversial 'What happened' section of the article, at least that would be my view on how to use it within the spirit of guidelines and policy, though saying that I do agree with Ken that primary sources have potential for enforcing neutrality. The also have a great potential to be misused. All of this, though, is something we should be discussing in mediation, though PR's belief in a giant zionist conspiracy appears to have scuppered the latest attempt. Outside of what BQZip proposed, I am unsure how a complete work over can be achieved without a huge bust up. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you beat me to it Narson, started an edit that pretty much said what you've just written so I won't repeat that part. However, I would also add that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for espousing fringe and conspiracy theories and the generally accepted version of events was that the attack was a mistake. A less heated approach would be wonderful, like not screaming censorship every time a conspiracy theory given undue weight is removed and where the "RS" is a blog from a hard core porn website.  Justin talk 10:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The mistaken attack claim is officially accepted by both the American and Israeli governments. Whether or not this claim is "generally accepted" depends on who you ask.Ken (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well everyone knows that the planes were piloted by Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa, the CIA then conspired with aliens to have Jimmy Hoffa abducted by a UFO whilst Elvis returned to the mother ship. Elvis is currently working under a secret identity in a chip shop in Barnsley. Allegedly. Justin talk 16:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Justin, whether it's here or elsewhere, when you make a statement without citing a source or data to backup your claim, don't be surprised when it's challenged.Ken (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its all in the July 2006 edition of Mammoth Mammaries. Justin talk 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Narson, No doubt, use of primary sources and only secondary sources produced by the governments (e.g., NSA and IDF History Reports) is a bit limiting compared to use of research results and opinions by pure secondary sources. But it seems that the various non-governmental secondary sources are at issue here.  Thus, putting them aside removes the issue.  I'd much rather spend time ensuring proper usage of primary source material (mostly avoidance of OR) than arguing the opinions and vagaries about who or what truly constitutes a reliable secondary source, etc.Ken (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The probem with primary sources is that it takes skill in historical academics to use them appropiatly and they are easily manipulated by those with a strong POV (To use PR's favourite example, David Irving's primary sources are often perfectly solid, it is his analysis of them that results in problems). This is why sometig like mediation is a good venue for their use where a great deal of time and care can be taken in their inclusion, as you work with a userspace article so there is no need for 'knee jerk' reaction. Though that being said, for certain things, they can be useful so I think there is a route of discussion there which could lead to something fruitful. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating inclusion of analysis, opinion or theories by contributors or secondary sources. I'm advocating limiting the article to a balanced presentation of facts and findings as presented in primary sources and governmental/official secondary sources -- nothing more, nothing less.  If people want to read what researchers and historians have to say about the matter, then a list of secondary sources may be listed; otherwise, keep Pandora's box closed.Ken (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent -> Policy of the project is to build articles around WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources.". Looking at the sources above, we'd likely exclude Cristol as so poorly regarded as to be effectively non-RS. (There are even serious accusations that he's fabricated parts of his testimony). We could be a bit suspicious of the well-cited Loftus - but there's nothing "surprising" in what he says, so it doesn't matter much. That gives us four RS to work with, all of which say "not accident" and at least one says "Dayan threatened sinking if the ship didn't move". Perhaps there are more sources that support the "accident" theory - but they're not referencing Cristol! The fact that Cristol is totally on his own need not surprise us, as even the JVL tells us that, by 1995, "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel's assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately". (Their claim that the situation has changed since then due to FOI release is a bit laughable). Under these circumstances, it's not clear that the "accident" theory even reaches the status of "significant-minority view" as required by policy. We can (and probably should) include the shadow of this theory with the Israeli denial. So long as it's not in the WP narrative voice. In addition there were, last time I counted, some 60 uncited statements in the article, the tags that I and others have placed were simply removed. The tag that marks the whole article as being poorly referenced was also removed. In other words, I'm not even seeing any attempt to improve this article, only a dogged determination to stop it presenting the major view. There may, one day, be real content disputes at this article - but what we're seeing currently is OWNERSHIP at a high level, backed by tendentious and disruptive editing, resulting in an article that nobody can possibly take seriously. PRtalk 11:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No the issue on this article is a series of SPA pushing fringe and conspiracy theories with undue prominence, always has been. That is made worse by editors seeking to conduct original research to insert their own theories.  Add in a little of trying to remove acceptable RS that contradict conspiracy theories by speculation and finally, the major stumbling block to improvement is that one editor has seen fit to frustrate mediation effort for entirely specious reasons.  The only tendentious and disruptive editing is by those editors pushing fringe material or abusing wiki processes to make a point.  I could wiki link to all the relevant polices but that would be a waste of time as you know full well what the policies are.  Justin talk 12:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I saw "Rebuttal" in the summary of your edit I thought I must have made some horrible mistake, and you were going to present a plethora of RS that says this attack was indeed an accident after all. Imagine my disappointment to discover that you're saving this information for a future occasion. PRtalk 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to side with PR as he at least makes the attempt to support his position. All I hear in rebuttal is accusations of bad faith with little to support them other than with largely biased sources. The official investigations comprise the majority of RS that hold that the incident was mistaken identity and they are only RS because they are "official". It is wrong to present as "fringe and conspiracy" anything you do not agree with. PR is willing to argue his case and you can't deny that some of his points have merit. Please do not reject everything he says because of your own POV on the issue. Wayne (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That you would "side" with PR comes as no surprise whatsoever. And, no, you don't hear accusations of bad faith, what you hear is policy based objections to using wikipedia as a soapbox to push conspiracy POV.  The bad faith accusations could quite rightly be levelled at the people who scream censorship and emotional hyperbole when their campaign to push their POV is frustrated.  Does his points have merit? No they don't and after repeatedly explaining why and having a mediation attempt by an independent editor frustrated for entirely specious reasons, my good faith assumptions are just about exhausted.  And my POV?  As a cantankerour Scottish git by professionm, a Catholic by religion, I am neiter pro or anti Isreali, American or Conspiracy Theory.  09:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fairly good as is. It gives both sides (accident vs intentional).  If anyone, however, believes it should be written entirely differently, I suggest that they completely rewrite the article on a page in their userspace and then link to it here.  Then interested editors can comment on it either here or on the talk page of the userpage draft.  Once everyone is in agreement that the drafted article is good to go, it can be copied over here in its entirety. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that was the idea with the mediation. PR declined to take part in that because BQZip is a member of the US Armed forces and so the pentagon was going to whisk him away to Area 51 should he allow anything negative to go in -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Serving members of the US forces may need reminding of the lengths that the US went to cover up this incident, and the danger to their careers (if not lives) if they rock the boat: "The Navy went to bizarre lengths to keep the crew of the Liberty from telling what they knew. When gag orders didn't work, it threatened sanctions. Ennes tells of the confinement and interrogation of two Liberty sailors that sounds like something straight from the CIA's MK-Ultra program. 'In an incredible abuse of authority, military officers held two young Liberty sailors against their will in a locked and heavily guarded psychiatric ward of the base hospital", Ennes writes. "For days these men were drugged and questioned about their recollections of the attack by a 'therapist' who admitted to being untrained in either psychiatry or psychology. At one point, they avoided electroshock only by bolting from the room and demanding to see the commanding officer." Since coming home, the veterans who have tried to tell of their ordeal have been harassed relentlessly. They've been branded as drunks, bigots, liars and frauds. Often, it turns out, these slurs have been leaked by the Pentagon. And, oh yeah, they've also been painted as anti-Semites." (This last, of course, has also been aimed at editors here seeking to write this article to policy and the reliable sources).
 * It is interesting to note the contrast between the treatment of this incident and the 1987 attack on the USS Stark. This is what the sailors of the USS Liberty suffered, described by ex-Congressman Paul Findley. "Although two US aircraft carriers received radioed pleas the moment the attack started and were close enough to help, the carrier commanders were denied permission to send rescue planes by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. Ahead for the Liberty survivors were 15 hours of trying to keep the injured alive and the ship afloat. Not until the next morning would they see a US ship or plane." PRtalk 14:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Politics of Anti-Semitism by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn, published by AK Press. Both authors are contributors to CounterPunch. Have a browse of those links and decide for yourself why PR might choose to pick that particular example. I also note that not one editor on this page has ever accused another of anti-semitism, not one. It has been pointed out this page attracts anti-semitics, which is not the same thing. Yet time and time ago, an off-the-cuff remark months ago is perverted to imply something it was never intended to be. Its simply a further example of bad faith accusations utterly without merit simply generate heat and light and hamper any potential for progress on this article. Justin talk 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, there was one chap who was very vocal about accusing me of anti-semetism a while back. Or were you refering to recent history? I'm still amazed PR hasn't listed the sources saying it was a accident. From the US Navy, the US Congress, the Knesset, the IDF...all very reliable sources who have held inquiries (And who dont have to sell books to Armchair Generals who fancy themselves as historians) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 19:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a great tendency here and elsewhere to confuse reliable reporting with the truth. Reliably reporting what one reads, hears or perceives is not the same as discovering and reporting the truth.  For example, it's commonly reported that the approximate flag size flown during the air attack was 5' by 8', and the flag flown during the MTB attack was approximately 7' by 13'.  This is reliable reporting because these approximate flag sizes are stated in primary sources.  But upon further research, primary sources and other direct evidence (photographs and USS Liberty's actual flag flown during the MTB attack, on display at NSA's public museum) state and indicate by measurement, respectively, that the pre-attack flag size was 3.5' by 6.7' and the larger flag was 5' by 9.5' -- grossly different from the approximate sizes cited by all reliable secondary sources.
 * Good historians are reliable reporters, but their reporting and opinions don't necessarily yield the truth.Ken (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[Reply to comments about US military interference with this article] I believe the public affairs offices of the US military services do monitor Wikipedia. I've observed two instances in which pictures vanished from DoD websites after I started writing articles about related subjects here in Wikipedia. I suspect that this edit to an article I was working on was made by someone closely associated with the US military. But I doubt that the US military is attempting to actively interfere with Wikipedia articles. The ensuing scandal if found out would be a serious black eye for the US DoD. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have updated the table. Cristol's book now has 1 cite to hard-copy (however, the cite is "Background Paper For Israeli Cabinet 11 June 1967", not sure if this counts as real evidence of anything). His book has lost the one google-books citation it had. Bamford's book jumps from 46 to 57 cites. Remove Moorer, not a book, no book citations found. PRtalk 17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A minor quibble re: Medal of Honor
While it is certainly irregular for a secret award of the Medal of Honor, it isn't that uncommon for the Secretary of an Armed Service presenting said award. For example, Walter C. Monegan, Jr.'s widow received her husband's award from the Secretary of the Navy. Others have as well. Should the section relating the unusual nature of said award be changed? Orville Eastland (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "nature" is part of the "proof" that there was a cover-up so should be written here how the sources use it. It is not claiming the presentation was unique. Wayne (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. I just think it could be worded better. After all, to the best of my knowledge, nobody else has received a Medal of Honor almost in secret. Several have received their medals from the Secretary of Defense, or Army or Navy. Orville Eastland (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like the answer would be to clarify just how common or uncommon both the presenter, the venue and perhaps the nature of the presentation truly are. That could lead to a more considered word choice or perhaps a better clarification. Clearly the issue is relevant toward allegations of coverup; a slightly more in-depth threshing of the facts may bring useful factual clarification to the subject. --Thatnewguy (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Moorer
As WorldFacts seems to be unable to find the text in the article, here is the text from the edit of...mid november? mid december? Quite some time ago.

Admiral T. Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a critic of the official United States Government version of events, chaired a non-governmental investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty in 2003. The committee, which included former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Akins, held Israel to be culpable and suggested several theories for Israel's possible motives, including the desire to bring the US into the Six Day War against Egypt.

There is then a reference to a Fox News item (reference 33, I believe). -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking this here, if I saw one more revert either way this article would have been locked. Now behave yourselves and talk it out here.  No comment on the merits of keeping the text around.  Kwsn   (Ni!)  23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering WorldFacts has stated he doesn't believe the talk page is worth his while, plus his claims that editors that oppose him are 'Sayanim' who are 'crawling on Wikipedia', I am afraid my optmism for what this will achieve is minimal. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some facts you may not be aware of. WorldFacts has been blocked for edit warring to shoe horn that edit in.  The edit itself doesn't conform to wiki policies or guidelines, falling foul of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, nevermind WP:RS since one of his main references is a blog posted on a hard core porn site.  Since his block he has been conducting a slow revert edit war, where he drops by every few days and drops that in.  Another editor HenryWinklestein was permanently blocked for pushing exactly the same agenda.  Further, the material he is complaining about was introduced into the article last October, so he is in fact duplicating material already in the article.  Further if you care to check the record in the archive, the editors involved have repeatedly taken it to talk but WorldFacts pointedly refuses to do so.  And finally, the editors involved largely agreed to an arbitration attempt by BQzip01 but that was frustrated by another of the SPA that frequents this page to push a particular agenda.
 * Frankly, after repeatedly requesting admin help in trying to stabilise the article to the point where editors can start to improve the article to a reasonable standard I find it quite disheartening that an admin would drop by with a "don't be naughty boys" type posting. This article does attract people pushing fringe or conspiracy theories, not to mention a number with an anti-semetic agenda (and let me re-iterate once again I AM NOT POINTING FINGERS AT ANYONE).  Yet it seems admins don't want to touch it with a barge pole for the hassle it would engender. Justin talk 09:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never said that "[this] talk page is [not worth my] while". I would say that despite the incredible amount of talking I have done, 'talking' is a complete waste of time since no attempt has ever been made, since September 2008 when I started this endeavor, to include a paragraph or 2 about the Moorer Report or quotes from it, from anyone else other then myself. I've done plenty of talking. TONS of it. Unfortuately, the only interaction vis a vis my entry of the Moorer report to the article has been deletion. Complete deletion. No attempt to appease the objections by the person deleting the entry is ever made. When I see that every single different version of my entry is deleted by the same few editors, it becomes clear that the objective is to censor discussion of the report. Not to mention the reasons given in order to remove the entry tend to be preposterous.

1) Moorer Report doesn't appear in the article.

It doesn't. When I add the entry, I am told it is being deleted because it is already there. This is a blatant lie. The words "Moorer Report" do not appear consecutively anywhere in the article other then in the link to the report itself. The Moorer Report, being the only American report which was done by reputable persons in military and government, deserves its own paragraph or two in the article.

2) The notion that the Moorer Report requires a source.

Funny! No other report listed has a single source. Yet when I was able to provide one by Paul Craig Roberts, I was told that because the location in which this article was written is a porn magazine, the article, written by Paul Craig Roberts, who has no ties to the porn world, is suddenly not a valid source. If Hustler quotes the bible, is God suddenly not a valid source? How childish is that? Only a child would value the "objections to the location where the article is written" over "the reputation of the author". Well, no source is used for any of the other reports but I did spend a few months finding a source for my entry and finally found one. With that task completed, some of you then objected to the location where the article was printed, while simultaneously giving no credit to the reputations of the author or the article or the authors of the report itself. Most importantly: why would the Moorer Report require a source, when no other report has a source? I am not here to satisfy editors. I am here to improve the quality and completeness of the article.

3) Uninvoled Editors and Admins.

That an admin "would drop by with a 'don't be naughty boys' " type posting is a wise move. I seriously doubt that they find my entry invalid, but they are taking notice that a perfectly valid entry is being deleted. If only they would take an active role in stating the obvious, that my entry is properly sourced and is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy, we would be ok. But alas, their lack of involvement creates this situation.

4) A word about a blatant Lie in the comments above.

"Further if you care to check the record in the archive, the editors involved have repeatedly taken it to talk but WorldFacts pointedly refuses to do so"

The most astounding lie I've read to date. I suggest you try reading my attempt at talking and reconciliation here.WorldFacts (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a mistake to protect the article, when there appears to be one reverting against many. WF claims a consensus for his preferred version; it would be desirable to test this by seeing if anyone else in good standing wishes to revert to it. Dropping the emotive language (astounding lie etc) would help calm matters.
 * Some comments: Moorer Report doesn't appear in the article - true, but a reference to it clearly does, so this is not a substantive point. The primary reference (http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/moorer.htm) is a web site of no clear provenance or reliability. If you don't even have a RS for the text of the report, you have a problem. "Commission" implies being commissioned by some entity, but there is no hint as to what that might be( suggests it was self-formed). The primary link prominently features its release on "Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C." which indicates to me a desire to appear "official" ( supports this) despite, on closer analysis, having no clear status.
 * WF asserts consensus for his version, based on "User:Wayne, User:Nishidani, User:15thST, User:CasualObserver'48, User:HenryWinklestein and User:PR". Wayne has made no relevant contributions. 15thSt was an SPA who made precisely 4 contributions, all to this talk page; HenryWinklestein doesn't exist; PR exists but made no contributions. N and CO48 both exist, but have not endorsed your statements.
 * William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The exact wording 'Moorer Report' isn't used, but the comittee and its finding are in the article. Thats all I really have to say on the matter. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 20:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say that continuing addition of this paragraph without apparent consensus for it appears to be classic disruption. I have warned Worldfacts that if they do this again I will block them. Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've struck through some of my comments, apologies frustration got the better of me. Justin talk 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, there was a complaint against WorldFacts filed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which can be found here. Spartaz closed out the issue by issuing a final warning to WorldFacts: if the editor reinserts the paragraph without first getting consensus then they will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that William M. Connolley has made some significant errors in his claims which require correction. He has overlooked that some editors have a different user name to their nickname. The link he provides for my contributions are for User:Wayne when my User name is WLRoss, my nickname is Wayne. I have 61 article and 105 talk edits here so his claim "Wayne has made no relevant contributions" definately does not apply. Similarly PR and HenryWinklestein have different user names and both have made a large numbers of edits. Wayne (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * HenryWinklestein made very few (if any) article edits. Just lots of trollish behaviour on talk pages, hence his indef for various reasons. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Would WorldFacts be able to edit if he had agreement?
The problems at this article go far beyond the inclusion of this one report, and I wish that WorldFacts would take a broader view rather than patiently attempting to reach an agreement over this one point. All the evidence is that any agreement he is able to come to will not be abided by - eg it has proved impossible to remove a clip that 5 editors want out, two of them calling it an obvious lie. There seems to me little point in endlessly debating the RS status of the important Moorer Report when the RS is already overwhelmingly against this incident having been an accident. PRtalk 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, you are like a dog with a bone over that arn't you? Repeatedly making up numbers and including people who have either been indef blocked as disruptive or who never acctually said what you claim they did starts to get a bit dodgy after a while PR. It also appears you have confused voting with consensus in the first place, so it is a shoddy house built on poor foundations. Using your own rather swiss cheese like table is also not going to convince. Really, do you have anything new to say or should we just upturn the soap box so you can give us the usual party political broadcast? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, incorrectly sourced info
I just happened here and corrected a paragraph where info was claimed to be from the BBC source, but wasn't; and the information poorly reflected the BBC's information. Also put dead link on a link that was not accessible for some strange reason. Not sure if temporary. Whatever the larger issues are, I can see the article needs remedial work. Can't say I'll be able to do it myself, but FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will give the link a check once I'm back home at my computer. What I think you identified is a lot of the OR that riddles the article. There are various bits of OR rebuttal snuck in throughout the article. Narson&#39;sPetFerret (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to edit back in unsourced info even if someone is only removing one POV's unsourced info. Is the solution to now delete all the unsourced info in the article? Does this include checking the reliability of some of the sources used for statements that do claim to be sourced and even whether sources correspond to their use as citations (as Carol points out one error with that above)? Narson&#39;sPetFerret (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand your reluctance, I would suggest starting to go through the article piece by piece and eliminating the POV slants and making the article truly NPOV. However, I am equally certain that such an effort would be frustrated by certain parties.  What to do?  Justin talk 08:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The most recent remove-revert contest involves non-cited material that claims IDF aircraft flew over the ship, several times, before the attack. It's true that the claim is not cited (like lots of other claims in the article), but US government messages and reports exist -- including the NSA history report -- that support this claim (abeit, perhaps not exactly as written by the original contributor). In other words, generally, reliable sources (primary and secondary) do exist for this claim; but whoever made the original contribution was too lazy to find and cite them.

Non-cited material is a long-standing issue with this article. I suspect much of it can be sourced by anybody interested in doing so; but there appears to be few, if any of us, willing to put effort into cleaning up a mess made by others. This is a perfectly understandable position for which I have no solution; but I don't believe simply removing only certain non-cited material (i.e., targeted removal) is a solution, nor is simply removing all non-cited material.Ken (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tinosa has put in some sources, which I've expanded from to make the chronology a bit more complete. Hopefully we can work through and get them all now. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

New Secondary Source Due for Release on June 2, 2009
I just discovered that a new secondary reference (i.e., book) entitled, Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel's 1967 Attack on a U.S.Spy Ship, is due for release on June 2, 2009.

The author, James Scott, is a professional journalist, a former Harvard Fellow, a former instructor of journalism at Harvard, and the son of Liberty's Damage Control Officer, John Scott.

Publisher: Simon & Schuster; ISBN-10: 1416554823; ISBN-13: 978-1416554820Ken (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know what's in this book? Does James Scott jr think Moshe Dayan got word to Washington that either they order the USS Liberty to leave Israeli waters or it would be sunk? 80.40.225.228 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, all I know is that its a new book that has been in the works for at least several years. I corresponded briefly with the author over a year ago -- on technical matters -- and he didn't reveal much to me about where his research was leading him; although, he made it clear that he was making every effort to be as accurate and objective as possible; i.e., not make assumptions or leaps-of-logic about any evidence.  When the book is release, we'll see whether or not he achieved his goal.Ken (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will be interesting to see, though I must admit my faith in journalists to produce decent academic work is somewhat shakey. Would be nice to be proven wrong. Will be interesting to see how he reconciles his principles with an event where his father's life was threatened. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that the work will present newly uncovered direct evidence and indepth interviews of various folks -- on both sides -- involved in the attack, as opposed to a thesis that attempts to support a pet-theory or opinions by the author or others. As you say, it will be interesting to see...Ken (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The author now has a website that features his new book: http://www.jamesmscott.com/Site/Home.html
 * His website gives a fairly good overview of his research findings.Ken (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is now an excerpt of chapter 4 of the new book on Scott's website. The last two sentences of the excerpt state: "McGonagle now scanned the horizon with his binoculars. Fifteen miles off the starboard side, he spotted three torpedo boats in attack formation aimed right at the Liberty."
 * The physics of the situation (including an optimistic 20% extension of view due to atmospheric refracted light) dictate that under ideal conditions, with McGonagle's eyeballs about 48 feet above sea-level, only the very tops of the MTBs' masts would have been visible at 15 nautical miles, and the MTBs would not have been in full view until they were less than 10 NM from the ship. In other words, it would have been physically impossible for McGonagle see the MTBs at 15 nautical miles; yet, that's what Scott reports in a slightly embellished (e.g., "scanned the horizon with his binoculars"), matter-of-fact manner.
 * I was hoping that Scott's book would go a bit beyond simply reporting testimony and document contents -- especially on matters that blatantly defy physics and logic. Perhaps I'm too quick to judge, but this sample of his work is disappointing.Ken (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on information posted on the author's website and elsewhere, the book is supposed to present heretofore unpublished documentary evidence, found in Israeli archives, that "at least one Israeli pilot correctly identified the Liberty during the attack and that others inside Israel’s chain of command were aware of the ship’s identity as the assault unfolded." While this may not resolve premeditated v/s mistaken initial attack claims, it appears to refute Israeli claims of complete ignorance about the ship's true identity until well-after the attack.

At this point, before the book's release and reading, I don't know the strength of the new evidence. But if it is unambiguous and can be traced to a primary source, then inclusion in article's content seems reasonable -- in a non-OR manner, of course. Whether or not opinions or conclusion by the author, Scott, should be included, I'm not sure. As Narson points out, Scott is a professional journalist and son of an attack survivor, not an objective historian. On the other hand, the article already contains significant opinion content from secondary sources who are not professional historians and have a stake in the matter; so, it's unclear that Scott is significantly different.Ken (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I now have the book. After giving it a quick read, I found nothing about the attacking pilots being fully aware that the ship was American or USS Liberty; although, it did bring out that pilot reports from the attack scene made clear to key individuals at command HQ that the ship was likely American and probably USS Liberty.  Nonetheless, the attack continued.


 * The book offers interesting new material and insights, albeit nothing earth-shaking; and it contains lots of primary source citations to support its content. In this latter respect, I believe it can well-serve as a reliable secondary source; although, as with any secondary source, it's not necessarily correct by virtue of primary information usage -- as well-demonstrated by use of McGonagle's impossible claim of seeing torpedo boats at 15 nautical miles.


 * Overall, the author did a good job of limiting himself to information from primary sources, both American and Israeli, and focuses on the American side or viewpoint of the matter.Ken (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the one thing to bear in mind when using it as a source is, obviously, that we are dealing with the son of one of those involved. So his interpretations should perhaps not be accepte as gospel. Mind you, I'm fairly dubious on journalists writing what should be history books (But that is my personal academic bias). Hopefully as time moves on we will see more historians examine the incident. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it is well-advised to not accept any source as "gospel." Heck, I'm even highly skeptical of the gospel being "gospel."Ken (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * According to this Seattle Times story, it appears that Scott's book speculates that the Israelis at first misidentified the ship and decided to attack. After the ship was positively identified, poor communication prevented this information from reaching the attack pilots and torpedo boat commanders in time.  In my experience, most military organizations try to cover up incidents which make them look incompetent or negligent, including in the US.  Anyway, as long as this article presents all sides of the issue according to the sources, including Scott's, there shouldn't be a problem. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Essentially, that's correct; but he based the scenario on direct evidence found in Israeli inquiry findings and communication transcript exhibts, not speculation. I don't recall him citing poor communications being a factor, only that key individuals at command HQ realized the ship was probably American, as the air attack began, but did not halt the air attack until one of the attack pilots communicated the ship's ID letters much later, during the attack.  Of course, whether or not this is true only the Israeli know; but at least, that's what documentary evidence indicates and Scott reported.Ken (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Thank you for clarifying that. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Broken NSA links
Looks like many, perhaps all, of the NSA links have moved -- even the basic homepage link, which I just updated at a single point. I was going to try to update all of them, but the second link I tried seems to stall -- the first-referenced NSA report of 1981. It's just completely stalled at the moment, URL of http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/attack_sigint.pdf ... which even has a different filename than the earlier link, so I'm not at all certain it's even exactly the same file. More to the point, this link alone is more than 15mb -- I don't know if Wikipedia standards call for direct linking at that point, or some how indicating it's a rather large file, or perhaps it should be linked to a parent page, e.g.: http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/chronology.shtml ... Should a third-party link (e.g., the incident Web site) be used in case of reliability questions, or alternate versions both linked? Anybody have insight into this, thoughts, suggestions? --Thatnewguy (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A motive didn't exist.
There are more conspiracy theories here than the Kennedy assassination (not the Kennedy killed by a Palestinian)

That the #1 conspiracy theorist James Ennes, has articles at Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (well-known for it's anti-Israel stance) tells me everything about his agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.106.161 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Apparently you feel strongly about this, but not strong enough to share your identity.  Anyway, do you have any suggestions for improving the article's content?Ken (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Word usage: "Critics" (Weasel Words)
While reviewing the article, I noticed frequent usage of the word "critics" in writing that deals with the attack being possibly not an innocent mistake. Typical usage involves phrases like: "Critics of Israel claim..." and "Critics of the attack claim..."

The true meaning of the word "critic" is one who offers a reasoned judgment, analysis, interpretation or observation that may or may not be supportive of a given matter or object. But often the word is applied to someone who adhere to a position that is in strong disagreement or opposition to a matter or object. And as sometimes used within this article, the word "citric" takes on a pejorative meaning.

There are true critics on all sides of this matter. Thus, to limit the word to only those who do not support the innocent mistake claim is a subtle POV writing style. To remedy this problem, perhaps phrases like the ones cited above can be fixed by simply dropping them or substituting words for "critics" that have a positive connotation, words like: "observers," "researchers," or "analysts."

There may be times when it's truly necessary to distinguish between the "believers" and "non-believers" of attack due to innocent mistake. In this case, perhaps one could use phrases like: "mistaken attack supporters" and "non-mistaken attack supporters".

Generally, I'm not completely opposed to using the word "critics" -- it's a perfectly good word when used sparingly and well-applied. But it can quickly become a "bad" word when overused or misapplied.Ken (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, phrases like "critics claim", or even the suggested "researchers claim", are weasel word phrases that have no place in a purportedly fact-based article.Ken (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I performed several edits to remove Weasel Word statments and a bit of associated OR. During the edits, I restructured some content in an attempt to enhance clarity.Ken (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If anybody can find and cite specific sources for the Weasel Word statements I removed, I encourage you to restructure and reinstate the statements with specific sources instead of Weasel Word statements like "critics claim."Ken (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problm with the removals really. Especially as part of it was blatantly that OR sneaking in again ('look at the two ships and draw your own conclusions!') -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources all say that Israel knew what it was doing
All the genuine material proving that Israel knew what it was doing has been taken out of the article replaced by garbage. And all the discsussion on the proof has been hidden in the archive - here's a block of it - what are people afraid of?


 * I'd suggest you look more into the (now indef blocked) user who compiled the list. It was constructed with a slant and picks and chooses so as to back up his view point. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good getting this careful compiler and researcher kicked off. There's lots more in the archive demonstrates the same thing, only one point of view allowed and dissenters silienced. 81.144.199.142 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that the user who made the table was User:PalestineRemembered .  Can't see any evidence from his block log, page or elsewhere that he has been indef banned or blocked, and he seems to be in good standing, but hasn't edited since February.John Z (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it? I was fairly sure it originally came from HenryWinklestein. My mistake if so, and apologies to PR for the mistake. It does not take away from the table being from selective sources in order to back up a view point. It ignores, for example, the US Government and the Israeli Government (Both of whom are reliable sources, it would appear). It ignores quite a few historical books on the war as well. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the purpose of this article (or any Wiki article) is not to prove or disprove anything. Rather, it's supposed to provide a well-balanced, accurate and coherent presentation of information and opinions by reliable secondary or primary sources.Ken (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange paragraph at end of "Ongoing controversy and unresolved questions"
The last paragraph:

From the early 1950s up to shortly before the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel's primary military ally was France.[citation needed] The United States, with a few exceptions, consistently refused requests for sales of offensive weapons to Israel until 1968.[citation needed] The height of French-Israeli cooperation was in the 1956 Suez war, when France, Israel and the United Kingdom participated in a combined ground, sea and air offensive against Egypt, despite stringent opposition from the United States and threats from the Soviet Union.[citation needed]

Seems to be out of context. If it is somehow relevant, I'd like to discuss it here. Until then I am deleting it because it confuses the reader without adding anything of value.71.243.119.32 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed John Stenbit Quote due to context
The John Stenbit quote: In a presentation given at Harvard University on March 13, 2003, Assistant Secretary for Defense John Stenbit, claimed that the Israelis had warned the United States to move the USS Liberty or they would sink it within 24 hours. The Liberty was not warned because it took more than 24 hours for the information to go through official channels.

gives the impression that John Stenbit independently (and in an official capacity) corroborates this account. As a review of the second reference (the first is presently broken) shows, Stenbit is engaged in a discussion of military communications. The link cites A Jay Cristol as the source. As Cristol is already extensively discussed here, the quote is unnecessary.

Worse, in its present context the quote gives the impression that Stenbit's comments were A) an independent corroboration and B) made in an official capacity. Neither of these is true.71.243.119.32 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
I'm going to make several additional edits: many of them due to the apparent after effects of a past merge. If there is a problem with any of them, please comment here.71.243.119.32 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried my best. Its still an unwieldy section. Perhaps breaking it up into one section about the arguments that people make, and another section about direct evidence would be helpful, but I'll leave that to somebody else.71.243.119.32 (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the Tribune Article
The section about the Tribune Article has been modified by WLRoss in a way that changes its emphasis. Previously the focus was on the testimony of numerous US military and intelligence personnel who are quoted as saying that they had first hand knowledge of smoking gun evidence of Israeli intent, and that this evidence has never been released.

In my opinion that is the central thrust and importance of the article, and it should not be diluted with conjectural quotes about Israeli intent.

Speaking personally, the Tribune article single handedly changed my mind about this issue. Either it is seriously flawed, or the US government engaged in a deliberate coverup of evidence implicating Israel. It is rare to see a newspaper article with so much first hand evidence about an issue like this.

I am not about to change the chronological ordering of the article, but I do think that the Tribune article deserves greater prominence.

Adding the NSA quotes (which merely add more statements of incredulity by US officials to an article that already has plenty) in the middle of this section distracts from the main thrust and importance of the Tribune article.

Accordingly, I am removing them. I am not necessarily saying that the quotes don't belong in the article. But in their present location they serve only to make the Tribune article look like a rehash of earlier treatments of the attack on the USS Liberty, not a source of new evidence.72.74.91.141 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had a go at it. To clarify, I'm certainly not saying that other parts of the Tribune article are unimportant. But to the extent that the Tribune article repeats information that was otherwise available elsewhere (including in other parts of this article), this repetition probably isn't relevant to this article (which is about what happened to the Liberty more than about how it is covered).

To the extent that the Tribune article provides significant new information about what the US knew about the attack it is very significant. That information should be presented separately from information contained in the NSA document releases (which contradict it). I hope that my changes achieve this separation.71.243.119.32 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV requires that we represent all views equally. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs.  Edit warring to push an article in the direction of righting great wrongs will only get you blocked for edit warring.  See WP:3RR.  Justin talk 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what your complaint is. If you have a problem with my edits you have a responsibility to tell me what that problem is on the discussion page. Repeated revisions without discussion are unhelpful and inconsistent with Wikipedia policy.71.243.119.32 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just did and pointed you to some policy guide lines. I suggest you read them.  Justin talk 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I all ready read them. ALL of them. In their entirety, with the possible exception of recent changes.
 * I have made numerous edits that could not possibly be considered POV, along with several that could. Of the edits that a reasonable person might argue are NPOV, some might be considered pro-coverup, while others might be considered anti-coverup, so I do not even know which POV you think the edits have.
 * You have absolutely no stated reason for removing the obviously NPOV edits.
 * As for the edits you think are POV, I have no idea which ones they are or which POV they are supposed to espouse.
 * Which specific edits do you have issues with? What are those issues?71.243.119.32 (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a page which you appear not have read: Revert only when necessary. I ask that you do the following:
 * 1. Undo all reverts for which you are not willing or able to discuss the reasons behind the revert. Linking to a Wikipedia policy is NOT equivalent to discussion. You need to be able to discuss why you believe that the specific edits violate the Wikipedia policy.
 * 2. Go ahead and revert any of my changes that you are willing to discuss. If I've made a bad change, I want it gone. The problem is not the use of reverts in general, but your specific habbit of reverting without meaningful comment71.243.119.32 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read your comments above, you have stated an intention to give greater prominence to the Tribune article. Please don't pretend to have NPOV in mind after making such a statement.  The edits I reverted were all changing emphasis to favour a particular POV; a revert was necessary.  I don't do reverts without a good reason.  Now I suggest you desist from the pointless attempt to raise the temperature of this dicussion with bad faith accusations.  Its BOLD REVERT DISCUSS.  Justin talk 20:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The heart of the problem is this: I don't know what you are complaining about. Three times you have reverted numerous changes that I made, and you have provided me with virtually no comment. As of this moment there is no specific word or other change that I made that I can point to and say: "Justin Kuntz thinks that this is a problem because of ." If _I_ don't understand the nature of the problem, then I can't effectively respond to it.

Normally I would limit myself to two reverts in a 24 hour period. But I am going to use the third so that we can move this discussion forward. When you next revert please do the following:

1. Only revert those specific changes that you believe are problematic. Do not revert all of my changes because you determine some to be problematic.

2. Comment here about what specifically it is that you are objecting to. If you identify specific words that I use or remove, or specific formating changes that I make, then there is a much better chance that I will understand what you are talking about.

3. If you think that I have a POV problem, please state what the POV is. I think that I have made edits that clarify points on both sides of the debate. I find myself in the strange situation of being accused of POV without knowing in which direction I am accused of taking the article.71.243.119.32 (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you revert you will breach 3RR and I will report this on the noticeboard. Justin talk 22:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR prevents any more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. I have only reverted twice. (Unless you count my self-revert which is clearly exempted).
 * I am just trying to make this article better. I don't understand your attitude. It isn't constructive to do reverts without clearly identifying the issue71.243.119.32 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, assuming that we are all ok with 71 and 72 being the same person, that part of the issue is that some edits are unnecessary, some detrimental (Just because someone is convinced by Cristol and references them, that they are someone prominent does make their view notable; many people cite the survivors as their referece, we would not delete them wholesale). Much of the rest (the shifting around and some of the word changing) I do view as being of benefit (removing the question at the start of that one section, removing emotive terms like 'ended his silence'). I make it three reverts by 71/72 and three from justin in the last 24 -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)  (EC)
 * It is 3 reverts, 3RR does not grant you carte blanche to make 3 reverts. Edit warring is unproductive and when you announce your intention to revert anyway after a warning that is likely to result in a block.  3RR is a guideline not a right to make up to 3 reverts.
 * I'd agree with Narson, not all of the changes are problematic. However, you give undue prominence to the Tribune article.  But then making bad faith accusations against other editors is also unhelpful.
 * For info I've raised this on the edit war noticeboard, together with my intention not to revert again. I'd suggest you self-revert.  Justin talk 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so now we have a case on the noticeboard. Whatever. At some point it will be resolved, and we will need to move forward. I thought the third revert was necessary because I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR CURRENT OBJECTIONS ARE. Please look at the article. Tell me which of my changes are a detriment to the article. I'll revert them myself.

On the specific issue of separating out the Tribune article, I felt that NSA disclosures and Tribune interviews were being covered in a way that made it difficult to separate one from the other. No doubt this was partly because the Tribune article reviewed the NSA disclosures. What specifically is it about this edit that you find objectionable?71.243.119.32 (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Narson, the John Stenbit quote was not removed ONLY because he quotes Cristol. I removed it because (if you navigate to the reference) he isn't really talking about this issue at all. he is talking about how important communications are in a theater of war. If John Stenbit had read an account in Cristol and said publicly "I believe that it happened the way Cristol said it did", I wouldn't have deleted that. I deleted it because the quote has been transplanted here from another context, and here it takes on a completely different meaning.

The old meaning was roughly "If CCC wasn't so poor in 1967, we might not have lost a ship". The new meaning is roughly "The Israelis gave us 24 hours to remove our boat or it would be sunk". If this later point is true, it probably should be in the article. But it would certainly be preferable to use a more direct reference.71.243.119.32 (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

One last thing. I strongly object to the claim that I have made bad faith accusations against anybody. I made changes. I commented about them in discuss. They were reverted without further discussion. I made more changes and more comments and was reverted again with no comments in discussion, and no actionable feedback. I was absolutely within my rights to complain about getting multiple reversions without a clear explanation of why.71.243.119.32 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

unindent

Knock yourself out, why don't you include the Waco conspiracy and the conspiracy to hide evidence of UFO at Roswell. I'm taking this off my watchlist. 19:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Not only do we have anonymous editors, but now an anonymous comment with not even an IP address. Anyway, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Generally, contributions by 71.243.119.32 appear to be constructive and well-reasoned. I understand the need to be concerned about POV and keeping the article well-balanced, but I agree with 71.243.119.32 that POV concerns should be well-explained and explored in an effort to resolve any preceived problems. This seems like a reasonable expectation to me.Ken (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My last comment as I am walking away from the article. NPOV means we represent all views in balance being careful to avoid giving undue prominence to any, and the coverage should reflect the notability of each. We don't for example give undue prominence to fringe/conspiracy theories. So when one editor announces they're convinced that a conspiracy theory is true and they start to edit the article to shift the balance of the article in its favour that fails NPOV. Thats why I reverted it.
 * But as I said I'm walking away from it, so knock yourself out put in all the crap you like. Justin talk 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the grand assumption that the Tribune article reliably reported facts, opinions and interviewee statements, then I see no reason to not allow a dispassionate summarization of these facts, opinions and statements in the article, in a well-balanced (i.e., NPOV) fashion. One way to do this is to devote a small sub-section to only the Tribune article, another way is to state and cite passages from the Tribune article elsewhere within the Wiki article.


 * By devoting a small sub-section to the Tribune article, it does give it more prominence than not. But whether this constitutes *undue* prominence or simply serves as a method to present the Tribune article, is not clear to me.  I appreciate 71.243.119.32 being forthright in stating that the Tribune article influenced his/her POV, but I see little to no POV expressed in his/her presentation of the material.


 * On the other hand, by presenting the Tribune article in its own subsection, it promotes using this technique for other articles and books on the subject. As such, we might end-up with subsections devoted to Mr. Cristol's book, one for Mr. Ennes' book, and yet another for Mr. Scott's book -- not to mention the IDF and NSA History Reports, etc.  So, in this light, I agree that placing the Tribune article in its own unique subsection is not a viable approach.  The Tribune article should be treated as a secondary source and not a topic or subsection unto itself. Ken (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That I agree with. A section on its own is the same old moorer report story, undue prominance to one part in a complex story. I had not realised that was being pushed forward as an idea. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the Tribune article, 'per se', needs to be emphasized. I think that the apparent existence of numerous individuals who personally claim to have seen the transcript needs to be made clear. I had read/skimmed this article several times (and made a number of edits) before I realized that the Tribune article is something other than a rehash of previously available information. Perhaps this is just an indictment of my reading skills. But I thought that the organization of this section contributed significantly to my difficulty. I was trying to fix this.


 * I don't think that a separate section is essential to this, merely helpful. Perhaps a section discussing the NSA transcripts (both those released by the Jerusalem Post and those recalled by the various individuals quoted in the Tribune article) would be a better way to go? 72.74.91.141 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer the Tribune to not have it's own name in a section title. I have no problem with the article itself. The problem I see is that the NSA section (where much of the tribune reporting belongs) may get too unwieldy. Perhaps keep and rename the Tribune section to "Critism of Released Communications" (as I have done per WP:Be Bold). I'm not saying the section is ok as is, but it is a starting point. Any ideas how we can handle this if renaming is not satisfactory? Wayne (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is acctually to bulky. We have individual quotes that essentially amount to the same thing (The released tapes arn't accurate). It seems we could cut it down by half simply by removing quotes infavour of prose. At that point it would not be too unwieldly to slip in. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Narson. I see no need to elaborate in a fashion that's building support for a claim rather than simply stating the essence of the claim.  If anybody wants to explore the claim further, they are free to go read the Tribune article themselves.  A trimmed-down version of the Tribune's claim would fix the prominence problem and allow it to fit nicely within the "NSA Tapes and Recent Developments" section.Ken (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, the current opening paragraph about the Tribune article is probably all that's needed.Ken (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just performed a bold edit in accordance with the above idea.Ken (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel's 1967 Attack on a U.S.Spy Ship"
New Secondary Source Due for Release on June 2, 2009

I just discovered that a new secondary reference (i.e., book) entitled, Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel's 1967 Attack on a U.S.Spy Ship, is due for release on June 2, 2009.

The author, James Scott, is a professional journalist, a former Harvard Fellow, a former instructor of journalism at Harvard, and the son of Liberty's Damage Control Officer, John Scott.

Publisher: Simon & Schuster; ISBN-10: 1416554823; ISBN-13: 978-1416554820Ken (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we know what's in this book? Does James Scott jr think Moshe Dayan got word to Washington that either they order the USS Liberty to leave Israeli waters or it would be sunk? 80.40.225.228 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, all I know is that its a new book that has been in the works for at least several years. I corresponded briefly with the author over a year ago -- on technical matters -- and he didn't reveal much to me about where his research was leading him; although, he made it clear that he was making every effort to be as accurate and objective as possible; i.e., not make assumptions or leaps-of-logic about any evidence. When the book is release, we'll see whether or not he achieved his goal.Ken (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Will be interesting to see, though I must admit my faith in journalists to produce decent academic work is somewhat shakey. Would be nice to be proven wrong. Will be interesting to see how he reconciles his principles with an event where his father's life was threatened. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the work will present newly uncovered direct evidence and indepth interviews of various folks -- on both sides -- involved in the attack, as opposed to a thesis that attempts to support a pet-theory or opinions by the author or others. As you say, it will be interesting to see...Ken (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The author now has a website that features his new book: http://www.jamesmscott.com/Site/Home.html His website gives a fairly good overview of his research findings.Ken (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is now an excerpt of chapter 4 of the new book on Scott's website. The last two sentences of the excerpt state: "McGonagle now scanned the horizon with his binoculars. Fifteen miles off the starboard side, he spotted three torpedo boats in attack formation aimed right at the Liberty."

The physics of the situation (including an optimistic 20% extension of view due to atmospheric refracted light) dictate that under ideal conditions, with McGonagle's eyeballs about 48 feet above sea-level, only the very tops of the MTBs' masts would have been visible at 15 nautical miles, and the MTBs would not have been in full view until they were less than 10 NM from the ship. In other words, it would have been physically impossible for McGonagle see the MTBs at 15 nautical miles; yet, that's what Scott reports in a slightly embellished (e.g., "scanned the horizon with his binoculars"), matter-of-fact manner.

I was hoping that Scott's book would go a bit beyond simply reporting testimony and document contents -- especially on matters that blatantly defy physics and logic. Perhaps I'm too quick to judge, but this sample of his work is disappointing.Ken (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on information posted on the author's website and elsewhere, the book is supposed to present heretofore unpublished documentary evidence, found in Israeli archives, that "at least one Israeli pilot correctly identified the Liberty during the attack and that others inside Israel’s chain of command were aware of the ship’s identity as the assault unfolded." While this may not resolve premeditated v/s mistaken initial attack claims, it appears to refute Israeli claims of complete ignorance about the ship's true identity until well-after the attack.

At this point, before the book's release and reading, I don't know the strength of the new evidence. But if it is unambiguous and can be traced to a primary source, then inclusion in article's content seems reasonable -- in a non-OR manner, of course. Whether or not opinions or conclusion by the author, Scott, should be included, I'm not sure. As Narson points out, Scott is a professional journalist and son of an attack survivor, not an objective historian. On the other hand, the article already contains significant opinion content from secondary sources who are not professional historians and have a stake in the matter; so, it's unclear that Scott is significantly different.Ken (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I now have the book. After giving it a quick read, I found nothing about the attacking pilots being fully aware that the ship was American or USS Liberty; although, it did bring out that pilot reports from the attack scene made clear to key individuals at command HQ that the ship was likely American and probably USS Liberty. Nonetheless, the attack continued.

The book offers interesting new material and insights, albeit nothing earth-shaking; and it contains lots of primary source citations to support its content. In this latter respect, I believe it can well-serve as a reliable secondary source; although, as with any secondary source, it's not necessarily correct by virtue of primary information usage -- as well-demonstrated by use of McGonagle's impossible claim of seeing torpedo boats at 15 nautical miles.

Overall, the author did a good job of limiting himself to information from primary sources, both American and Israeli, and focuses on the American side or viewpoint of the matter.Ken (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the one thing to bear in mind when using it as a source is, obviously, that we are dealing with the son of one of those involved. So his interpretations should perhaps not be accepte as gospel. Mind you, I'm fairly dubious on journalists writing what should be history books (But that is my personal academic bias). Hopefully as time moves on we will see more historians examine the incident. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is well-advised to not accept any source as "gospel." Heck, I'm even highly skeptical of the gospel being "gospel."Ken (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this Seattle Times story, it appears that Scott's book speculates that the Israelis at first misidentified the ship and decided to attack. After the ship was positively identified, poor communication prevented this information from reaching the attack pilots and torpedo boat commanders in time. In my experience, most military organizations try to cover up incidents which make them look incompetent or negligent, including in the US. Anyway, as long as this article presents all sides of the issue according to the sources, including Scott's, there shouldn't be a problem. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, that's correct; but he based the scenario on direct evidence found in Israeli inquiry findings and communication transcript exhibts, not speculation. I don't recall him citing poor communications being a factor, only that key individuals at command HQ realized the ship was probably American, as the air attack began, but did not halt the air attack until one of the attack pilots communicated the ship's ID letters much later, during the attack. Of course, whether or not this is true only the Israeli know; but at least, that's what documentary evidence indicates and Scott reported.Ken (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you for clarifying that. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

=
=============
 * Ken, I've pasted an already archived discussion on this source from June 2009, because I feel compelled to question your criticism of James Scott Jr. You wrote this -

"'There is now an excerpt of chapter 4 of the new book on Scott's website. The last two sentences of the excerpt state: 'McGonagle now scanned the horizon with his binoculars. Fifteen miles off the starboard side, he spotted three torpedo boats in attack formation aimed right at the Liberty.' The physics of the situation (including an optimistic 20% extension of view due to atmospheric refracted light) dictate that under ideal conditions, with McGonagle's eyeballs about 48 feet above sea-level, only the very tops of the MTBs' masts would have been visible at 15 nautical miles, and the MTBs would not have been in full view until they were less than 10 NM from the ship. In other words, it would have been physically impossible for McGonagle see the MTBs at 15 nautical miles; yet, that's what Scott reports in a slightly embellished (e.g., 'scanned the horizon with his binoculars'), matter-of-fact manner. I was hoping that Scott's book would go a bit beyond simply reporting testimony and document contents -- especially on matters that blatantly defy physics and logic. Perhaps I'm too quick to judge, but this sample of his work is disappointing.Ken (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)"

What material I've heretofore had the time to read on this topic states that Scott was in the Liberty's pilothouse with his binoculars when he spotted the torpedo boats...what's your source that this pilothouse is a mere 48 feet above the water's edge? I welcome an education here, but your dissection of the physics of the situation seems a bit questionable; if he was higher than 48 feet, would he not have been able to see 15 miles away? I was always given to understand one can see 12 miles away over water at the beach, due to the curvature of the earth. If I'm on just a 3rd or 4th floor (about 50 feet) balcony of a beachfront hotel room, or a higher navy ship pilothouse, I can see much further than this, no? Please educate me if I am mistaken, as I am in the process of trying to find engineering and design data on this ship from a friend serving in the Coast Guard. Critical Chris  02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Chris, the author, James Scott, is the son of Ensign John Scott who was USS Liberty's Damage Control Officer. Ensign John Scott was NOT on the bridge (03 level) during the attack.  Instead, he was at his duty station inside a compartment in the forward part of the ship where he was directing fire-fighting and damage control efforts.


 * According to USS Liberty's layout drawings, the 03 level deck was 22.5' above the main deck (i.e., 7.5' between each level). When USS Liberty was attacked, her operating draft was about 20.5'.  The distance from her amidships main deck to the bottom of her hull was 38.5'  Thus, 38.5' - 20.5' = 18' for the distance from the waterline (sea level) to the main deck.  So, from the waterline to the 03 level deck was 18' + 22.5' = 40.5'.  A 6' tall man's eyeballs are at about 5.5' above the bottom of his feet.  If his feet were standing on the bridge deck, as was McGonagle's, his eyeballs were at about 40.5' + 5.5' = 46' above sea level -- two feet lower than my original estimate of 48'.


 * Reliable calculators for computing the visual distance-to-horizon (VDH) can be found at various web sites. One that I use is here: http://www.boatsafe.com/tools/horizon.htm
 * Using this calculator, the VDH for a pair of eyeballs located 46' above sea level is close to 8 nautical miles.


 * The Israeli motor torpedo boat (MTB) mast was about 20' above sea level. At the top of the MTB mast the VDH was about 5 nautical miles.  The distance at which the top -- and only the top -- of the MTB's mast would have become visible to McGonagle is simply his VDH (8 NM) plus the MTB's VDH (5 NM); i.e., 13 nautical miles.  For McGonagle to see the MTBs well enough to realize they were torpedo boats, he would have had to see a majority of the boat's hull over the horizon.  Assuming the main deck of the MTB was about 6' above sea level, let's say he needed to see about 3' of the hull.  At 3' the VDH is about 2 NM.  Adding McGonagle's VDH yields 10 NM maximum distance at which McGonagle may have been able to see (via binoculars) the MTBs well enough to determine they were MTBs.


 * So, you see, it was impossible for McGonagle to spot the MTBs at 15 NM. Further, according to Court of Inquiry testimony, the MTBs appeared on Liberty's radar when they were at 16 NM -- before the air attack began.  The radar antenna was about 110' above sea level with a VDH of about 12 NM.  Generally, radar can "see" at least 10% beyond the visual horizon due to atmospheric refraction of the radar signal, and it only needs to "see" enough of a target to issue a detectable return signal; i.e., the MTBs' masts being above the radar's horizon were probably enough of a target for the radar to detect them as fast-moving objects headed for the ship.  Incidentally, the radar antenna was disabled during the air attack, according to Court of Inquiry testimony.


 * Note: All of the above constitutes original research, and I provide it here simply to respond to Chris' inquiry. I'm not advocating its inclusion in the article.Ken (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/usslibertyplans for USS Liberty's layout plans.Ken (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://www.scribd.com/doc/7822294/US-Navy-Course-NAVEDTRA-12968D-Lookout-Training-Handbook for information published by the U.S. Navy about sighting ships at sea and judging their distances.Ken (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent Editing Efforts Slanting Article's POV
Recent editing efforts to improve the article's introduction are causing an unbalanced summary of claims; thus, slanting the article's POV. The most blatant POV edit was by IP:86.26.0.25 who completely removed the following summary of counter-claims: "Some American government officials and others did not believe the attack was an innocent mistake. They noted that various aircraft, apparently Israeli, flew over Liberty at regular intervals—some at low altitudes—before the attack; and that Liberty was about twice as large as El Quseir, designated with Latin rather than Arabic letters, displaying the US flag, and differently configured. Additionally, American State Department messages indicated that Israeli government inquiry about U.S. ships in the area was made only after the attack ended.< ref name=JamesScottBookp197>James Scott, The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel's Deadly 1967 Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship, Simon & Schuster, 2009. p. 197 "

I grant that the article's prose needs improvement, but please don't remove large chunks of reliable and verifiable information that counterbalances opposing claims.Ken (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It has always been my position that the article's introduction is too long and detailed, and that its claims and counterclaims paragraphs contain material that is well-explored within the article's body. Thus, I propose removing the claims and counterclaims paragraphs to streamline and simplify the introduction. Doing so, the introduction would read as follows:
 * The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a neutral United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli jet fighter planes and motor torpedo boats on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War. The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and a civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and damaged the ship severely. The ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nautical miles (47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.
 * The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a neutral United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli jet fighter planes and motor torpedo boats on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War. The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and a civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and damaged the ship severely. The ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nautical miles (47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.


 * Both the Israeli and US governments conducted inquiries into the incident, and issued reports concluding that the attack was a tragic mistake, caused by confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty. The conclusions reached in the inquiry reports remain controversial, and some veterans and intelligence officials who were involved in the incident continue to dispute the official story, claiming Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty remains the only major maritime incident in US history not investigated by the US Congress.


 * In May 1968, Israel paid US$3,323,500 as full payment on behalf of the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969 Israel paid a further $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980 Israel agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the US claim of $7,644,146 for material damage to the Liberty itself.


 * On December 17, 1987, the issue was officially closed by the two governments through an exchange of diplomatic notes.

Ken (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi I actually did that editing and must have deleted the sentence accidentally. What I was trying to do was a series of complex edits that would re-order the two paragraphs around so they went into two sections starting with the phrases (i) in favour of and (ii) against. I thought that would be a clearer organisation. I didn't intend to change the content. But wikipedia logged me out and in the process I must have forgetten to re-paste that sentence back in again. Apologies for the clumsiness. Avaya1 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * it must be obvious that the real story is being covered up - the recent Chicago Tribune article is as good as anywhere to check on the weight of evidence. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not anything is being covered-up is not the focus or intent of the article. For me, and in accordance with WP, the objective here is to present a well-balanced (i.e., neutral point of view) description of the USS Liberty attack and it's aftermath that's based primarily on verifiable information from reliable secondary sources.Ken (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence for the dreadful whitewash that is this article can be seen in previous discussions, wherein numerous editors have been been wantonly and maliciously accused of antisemitism, numerous cooperative and consensual wordings have been over-ruled by brutal admin action, survivors with excellent personal knowledge have been hounded off and the considerable literature available has been abused in a highly unbalanced fashion.
 * And if anyone doubts that this is the case, note how quickly information has been set to scroll off this discussion page (is it 7 days?). A first step to getting writing this article to the actual sources would be to set the macro to 90 or 180 or even 730 days like many other articles. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly it archiving after 7 days. That is why you are replying to comments that are on here after almost a month of inactivity, in a thread that started over 2 months ago. Never let reality get in the way of a good bit of necro-bestial flaggelation. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Narson, It's the nature of the beast. Those with extreme or immutable views, on both sides of the fence, seem to favor or promote beliefs above reality or fact-based logic.  As such, they will always be disappointed with Wikipedia because of its intolerance for expression of personal points-of-view, original research, and unreliable or non-verifiable sources -- a necessary requirement for maintaining a balanced presentation of reliable information.Ken (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please include this Youtube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRZSzdQuOqM TIA. --92.74.16.139 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This YouTube video is not from a reliable source. As such, it's not a candidate for inclusion in the article.Ken (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Attack on the Liberty" section
The section entitled "The Attack on the Liberty" begins with a paragraph which describes the history of the ship, but has nothing to do with the attack. This paragraph more properly belongs in a separate section. The paragraph could go in the opening section, or in a new section entitled "About the Liberty". Or perhaps the paragraph is better omitted from this article altogether, being detailed information more appropriate to the "USS Liberty" article. I'll leave this to someone more familiar with the topic.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The ship's history has nothing to do with the attack. Additionally, there are no cited sources for the information given.  A Wiki article, and hyperlink to it within this article, already exists for the ship's history.  This alone should satisfy anybody who's interested in the ship's history.Ken (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Auto-archiving rate
An anon recently unarchived /Archive 7 and changed the auto-archiving rate to 365 days, up from 14. Though I disagree with his motives, 14 days is too strict for a page with this level of activity; However, 1 year is too lenient. As such, I have set the auto-archiving rate to (IMO) a good compromise: 60 days. Do take note that regardless of archiving rate, the bot always leaves at least 5 threads on the talk page. I do not feel it is necesary to undo the unarchiving; It will be done automatically by the bot. I have added a clear note about the archiving rate to the archives box, and a search form for the archives for good measure.  Rami  R  11:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure when it was set to 14 days, I've certainly never noticed it archiving (but then discussions tended to rumble on for quite some time). Totally agree with 60 days. Not overly happy with the bullshit being spouted by the IP, mind. However, it makes no sense other than random attacks. Probably just a blocked user from this page who is all butt hurt. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is David Lewis?
David Lewis is mentioned at the end of the article, after the bullet point U.S. rescue attempts:

A commander on the Liberty? Would like to see someone knowledgeable repair this. Thanks. Please forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong place or the wrong way. TheStrawDog (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Commander David Lewis was the NSA officer in charge of the Liberty's intel facilities. He was the highest ranking officer wounded in the attack. He was the person Admiral Geis spoke to about President Johnson telling him that he prefered all the crew drown rather than admit the attack was deliberate. Wayne (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At the time of the attack, David Lewis was a U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander. He was the senior Naval Security Group officer on USS Liberty.  The Naval Security Group was the U.S. Navy component of the U.S. Department of Defense's Central Security Service.  To coordinate the work of NSA and CSS, they were under a common director that effectively unified the two organizations.  None-the-less, strictly speaking, NSA was not CSS, and CSS was not NSA.  In other words, David Lewis was not an NSA officer, he was a Naval Security Group officer as described herein.Ken (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thx for catching that. I only checked a couple of sources and accepted what they said although they did say "retired commander" rather than commander. Wayne (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr. Lewis was eventually promoted to full Commander and then served as the commanding officer of the Naval Security Group Department of the Wahiawa, Hawaii Naval Communication Station. He retired with the rank of Commander.  I happen to know this because he was my commanding officer when I was stationed at Wahiawa.Ken (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

'Jamming' subtopic within 'Details in Dispute'
The 'Jamming' subtopic within 'Details in Dispute' contains the following statements:

"According to a book by Russell Warren Howe (see below), Captain McGonagle testified that the jamming of his transmissions had been on American, not Egyptian, frequencies, suggesting that someone was aware of the nationality of the ship. However changing frequency is a standard technique to avoid radio jamming and jamming equipment is often designed to find the actual frequencies in use."

First, it's not clear whether or not both statements came from Howe.

Second, I've found no statements in any primary source, or other secondary sources, about McGonagle testifying that his ship's radio transmission was jammed. Instead, testimony about the ship's radio reception being jammed was given by members of the ship's radio communications crew, not by McGonagle.

Third, although the second statement may be true, it appears like Original Research that's speculative and goes beyond the known the facts or claims of the matter. Also, I do not recall seeing it mentioned in any of the primary or secondary sources that I've read.

Given the above arguments, I believe the above quoted statements should be stricken from the article or, preferably, reformed to accurately reflect information found in primary sources; i.e., the basis of information often cited in various reliable secondary sources.Ken (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an "American frequency". While different countries use different frequencies for different things, in international waters, most voice communications (irrespective of country-of-origin) are within certain bands as agreed upon by international treaties and everyone shares those bands. As it is unsourced and inaccurate (at best), I vote to delete it. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that the wording 'American frequency' was an inaccurate way of saying: frequency commonly used by the U.S. Navy in the Eastern Med. Regardless, there is no such thing as an 'American frequency.'  Besides, a close reading of the Naval Court of Inquiry record states that Liberty's radio operators experienced radio signal reception interference -- believed to be jamming -- noted on the Navy's Eastern Med HICOM voice frequency (11,256.5 KHz according to the ship's radio log).  Nothing was stated about other frequencies being jammed; although, this was strongly implied in official messages about the jamming claim.  Bottom-line: the entire 'Jamming' subtopic is problematic.  Accordingly, I'll take a stab at a purely fact-based rewrite based solely on information found in the Naval Court of Inquiry records and other reliable sources.Ken (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, Ken. Let me know if I can help. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory template insulting
Yes, there may be conspiracy theories about this, but to label the whole article a conspiracy theory is insulting. It's like labeling John F. Kennedy assassination thusly because it has a section on conspiracy. If there are theories in the article that WP:RS call "conspiracy theories" then fine make a section called that. I will remove it unless some really good explanation is forthcoming. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed old uncited tag and uncited material
Per my edit summaries today. Added on ref that seemed important and easily found. People should tag other problematic material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The last time I attempted to tag problematic (i.e., uncited) material I got my hand slappled for "disruptive editing." Somewhat understandable, perhaps, because the article contains lots of uncited material.  Personally, I like the approach of simply not tolerating uncited material in the article -- period.Ken (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even read whole article, just dealt with things tagged for a long time which people should have ref'd by now. Tagging everything can see disruptive, esp. if you don't try to ref anything. But certainly tagging the most questionable/contentious material should be OK. Esp if you try to ref some of it. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to spend time attempting to finding references for contributions by others. On the other hand, I'm inclined to tag or remove all uncited/unsourced opinions and factual claims.  If I read you correctly, you too believe that uncited/unsourced material should be tagged or removed, but only after one tries to find references for the contributions -- regardless of the original contributor.  The idea that editors of an encyclopedia can contribute whatever opinions and factual claims they please, without reliable references, for others to resolve, is silly and chaotic.  Tolerating the contribution of opinions and factual claims without reliable references opens the door for the entry of POV and OR content.Ken (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Joe Meadors was on one of the Free Gaza boats
Joe Meadors was on one of the other Free Gaza boats that was seized at the same time as the Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010. For Meadors, this marks the second time he has been aboard a ship attacked by Israeli forces in international waters. SOURCE : |Video interview + transcript on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. This should be mentioned in the article but I'm not sure exactly where. Oclupak (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC
 * The article is about the June 8, 1967 attack on USS Liberty and its investigation(s). The article is not about the recent adventures (or misadventures) of Joe Meadors, or other survivors or perpetrators of the attack.  It's my understanding that Meadors was on one of the Free Gaza boats (not the Mavi Marmara) for the purpose of performing a ceremony, somewhere relatively near the attack's location, to honor his dead shipmates.  Additionally, he may have had other reasons to be with the flotilla, but they were outside anything directly related to the USS Liberty attack.  The fact that Meadors was not able to perform the ceremony due to the unrelated flotilla assult and capture by the IDF is ironic, but not germane to the article's subject.Ken (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Contributions by 70.179.124.58
I see a large number (20) of serial edits by 70.179.124.58 (IP address near Washington, D.C.). Some edits provide new material and others modify previous content. As is common for anonymous contributors, no citations were provided for new material. Some of the new and modified material is clearly POV oriented and some is borderline OR, and all clearly intended to support Israel's side-of-the-story.

Frankly, the Liberty Incident article is too much of a "hot potato" to ever become a respectable Wiki article. The primary and secondary sources cited within are filled with divergent opinions and findings by authors on both sides of the fence. And all of the currently cited sources, including primary sources, are peppered with demonstratively erroneous information. Thus, anybody attempting to contribute to the article with intent of ensuring the article is "correct" or "true" will be forever frustrated.Ken (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC


 * After carefully reviewing edits by 70.179.124.58, I see that some previously cited content was deleted or modified without explanation. In fact, all contributions by 70.179.124.58 are unexplained.  This large series of unexplained and non-cited edits and contributions is more disruptive than constructive.Ken (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm finding that some of 70.179.124.58's contibutions are not factually supported by any of the sources currently used for the article; i.e., it appears that he/she is contributing stuff that agrees with his/her views and not anything from a reliable source. Additionally, some previously cited content was modified to the point that it nolonger agrees with the cited source.Ken (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Anonymous contributor 70.179.124.58 is on a roll. At this point, I believe he/she has violated virtually every wiki-content policy.  If this keeps up, within a few weeks the article will be thoroughly edited to express his/her POV and present his/her OR.  Perhaps the article should be retitled: "The Liberty Incident -- according to 70.179.124.58"Ken (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now we have another anonymous contributor, 99.232.218.179 (IP address near Toronto, ON, Canada), fixing 70.179.124.58's spelling errors. Very interesting.Ken (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Tinosa (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC) SSN.


 * If I read no objection within a few days, I will revert the article to the last edit before 70.179.124.58 began contributing, on the grounds of POV and OR content and generally unwiki-like editing behavior.Ken (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a straightforward way to do a mass revert after a long series of disruptive edits with conflicting edits interspersed, or must one perform a long series of reverse-order, step-by-step undos?Ken (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When all else fails, read the instructions. Contributions by 70.179.124.58, and several minor changes to 70.179.124.58's contributions, have been reverted.  If 70.179.124.58 reads this, I encourage him/her to contribute, but do so in a non-disruptive and explained manner.Ken (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentially, not all of 70.179.124.58 contributions were problematic -- some were neutral and interesting. Unfortunately, these contributions were often mixed with others containing POV or OR.Ken (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Truth for anonymous editor 76.17.171.199
Recently (8/18/10 - 8/19/10), anonymous editor 76.17.171.199 removed a cited statement that contained a "weasel word" and did not agree with his/her understanding of the truth about a claim stating that the USS Liberty incident was the only one of its kind not investigated by U.S. Congress. In turn, I reverted the deletion and replaced the original statement with a direct quote from the reliable source to ensure the source's original claim was accurately presented. Not long after, the direct quote was deleted by 76.17.171.199 because it did not agree with his/her understanding of the truth. In turn, this deletion was reverted by WLRoss who reminded 76.17.171.199 that verifiability (assuming reliable source), not truth or an editor's POV, is the basis for acceptable material within Wikipedia.

As to 76.17.171.199's understanding of the truth and claim that the USS Cole incident was not investigated by Congress, I suggest that he/she read the following PBS interview concerning a Congressional hearing (i.e., Congressional investigation) specifically about the USS Cole incident: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec00/aden_10-19.html Additionally, a search of U.S. Library of Congress database will shed further light on the subject: http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&BBID=13135284&v3=1 Ken (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Incident" not Attack ?
Noone I know refers to the attack on the USS Liberty and the murder of 34 sailors as an "incident"Go look at the the 'Gaza "war"' page debate discussion page. A war is when two armies are fighting. If the main argument is google searches and google terms... and the pretense that one cannot create redirect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.37.78 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

An incident is: 1. A definite and separate occurrence; an event. 2. A usually minor event or condition that is subordinate to another. 3. Something contingent on or related to something else. 4. An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident.

To quote the archives: The word to use here is 'attack', as in 'The attack on USS Liberty', nothing more, nothing less. Knutars 10:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You never even bothered to answer this guy back in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.37.78 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the article clearly states that the "incident" consisted of an attack. Also, the USS Panay Incident was an attack, but it's called an incident -- as are many other attacks on naval ships.  Your own cited definition states that an incident is "an occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident."  I believe it's fair to say that an attack is an occurrance or event.  And this attack was considered an international incident.  In a like manner, the attack on Pearl Harbor could be called -- and is sometimes called -- the Pearl Harbor Incident.  So, whether or not the article is entitled "Attack on USS Liberty" or the "USS Liberty incident" it does not affect its content or the fact that USS Liberty was attacked.  If the article's title is changed, then the first sentence can be reworded to state the the attack was an incident, instead of the stating the incident was an attack.  Either way is fine with me.Ken (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

User Reenem's POV edits
Recently, user Reenem has been busy performing extensive edits to the article. Many appear as POV edits in that they favor or expand on the IDF's version of events and/or remove factual material that does not fit the IDF's version of events. This article has a long history of folks -- on both sides of the matter -- attempting to interject POV, OR, weasel words, undue emphasis, etc. Such is the nature of a controversial topic with partisan supporters. Thus, at this point, I'm not inclined to do much more than note this event.Ken (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

All of Reenem's edits are not summarized and many encompass a wide scope; thus, one can only guess at the cause for each edit session. Additionally, some of the edits introduced contextual awkwardness or completely confused original context. The most glaring of these being edits within the "Air and sea attacks" subsection where the Naval Court of Inquiry testimony's of Captain McGonagle and Ensign Lucas were blended -- in a confusing manner that eliminated most of Ensign Lucas's testimony -- to read like they were in agreement; but, in fact, they were in great disagreement.Ken (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the following text be used in the "Air and sea attacks" subsection for Captain McGonagle's and Ensign Lucas's differing recall of events during the attack. It simply presents their recall, mostly as quotations from the Naval Court of Inquiry record, without any type of editorial comment.Ken (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Libertys captain, Commander McGonagle, was wounded during the air attack, but he remained in command on the ship's bridge. He testified, at the Naval Court of Inquiry (NCOI), that "about midway during the [air] attack Ensign Lucas was noted on the bridge and at that time he became my assistant and assisted me in every way possible." Ensign Lucas testified at the NCOI that he left Libertys bridge during the air attack and returned during the torpedo boat attack, before the torpedo hit. After returning to the bridge, he assisted Captain McGonagle and wrote entries in the Quartermaster's notebook.


 * Captain McGonagle said that Liberty maintained her westward heading throughout the air and sea attack. His NCOI testimony was that during "the latter moments of the air attack, it was noted that three high speed boats were approaching the ship from the northeast on a relative bearing of approximately 135 [degrees] at a distance of about 15 [nautical] miles. The ship at the time was still on [westward] course 283 [degrees] true, speed unknown, but believed to be in excess of five knots."  Ensign Lucas testified that Liberty was "attempting to get away from the area as fast as possible, on an approximate course of 000" (north) during the air and sea attack.


 * McGonagle further testified that he "believed that the time of initial sighting of the torpedo boats ... was about 1420" (2:20 PM local time). He further testified that the "boats appeared to be in a wedge type formation with the center boat the lead point of the wedge. Estimated speed of the boats was about 27 to 30 kn," and that it "appeared that they were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude."


 * McGonagle said that he then ordered a sailor to proceed to machine gun Mount 51 and open fire. He testified: "When the boats reached an approximate range of 2,000 yards, the center boat of the formation was signaling to us. Also, at this range, it appeared that they were flying an Israeli flag." It was not possible to "read the signals from the center torpedo boat because of the intermittent blocking of view by smoke and flames." McGonagle said that he "realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in error." At this point, he ordered the man in Mount 51 to cease fire, but the sailor fired a short burst before he was able to understand. At this same time, machine gun Mount 53 began firing at the center boat, and Captain McGonagle observed that its fire was "extremely effective and blanketed the area and the center torpedo boat." Machine gun mount 53 was located on the starboard amidships side, behind the pilot house. McGonagle could not see or "get to mount 53 from the starboard wing of the bridge." So, he "sent Mr. Lucas around the port side of the bridge, around to the skylights, to see if he could tell [Seaman] Quintero, whom [he] believed to be the gunner on Machine gun 53, to hold fire." Lucas "reported back in a few minutes in effect that he saw no one at mount 53." McGonagle expressed that he felt "sure that [the torpedo boat captains] felt that they were under fire from USS Liberty".


 * Ensign Lucas testified that after he returned to the bridge a torpedo hit Liberty. He said that after the torpedo hit, there was "some firing from the patrol boats", and that the "man in charge of mount 53 [the starboard amidships machine gun], Seaman Quintero, hollered to me, 'should I fire back?', and I gave him an affirmative on that. This was before he [Quintero] and the other men in mount 53 had been chased away by the fire and flames from the motor whaleboat." During a lull in firing from the torpedo boats, Lucas stated that "it sounded as if [mount 53] was firing at the patrol craft." Captain McGonagle sent him to tell the men to stop firing, but he found nobody manning the gun. Lucas speculated that the firing may have been ammunition "cooking off and firing", due to the nearby whaleboat fire. Additionally, at some point during the torpedo boat attack, Lucas recalled that a Seaman either volunteered or was ordered to go to the forward starboard machine gun mount and fired one shot before Captain McGonagle ordered him to cease fire. At about this same time, "the patrol craft were bearing approximately 160 relative", and one of them was trying to signal via blinking light. Lucas stated that "smoke from the motor whaleboat almost completely obscured the patrol craft", making it impossible to read the signal.


 * Ken, that seems like an excellent proposed edit for the section, and I would encourage you to make it. I agree with some (actually all) of your other comments here, notably that this is a 'hot potato' topic and will always suffer from editors coming to the page with an axe to grind and a POV flowing from their keyboard. With that in mind, I would like to ask you and others your opinions on the following:


 * As a controversial topic with highly divergent versions of the facts, the article generally does a good job of highlighting, within the text, the sources for information given. In case I am unclear, I offer this paragraph as a good example - "Visibility of American flag: The official Israeli reports say that the reconnaissance and fighter aircraft pilots, and the torpedo boat captains did not see any flag on Liberty. Official American reports say that the Liberty was flying her American flag before, during and after the attack, the only exception being a brief period in which one flag had been shot down and then replaced with a larger flag that measured approximately 13 ft (4.0 m) long. U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry finding number 2 states: "The calm conditions and slow speed of the ship may well have made the American flag difficult to identify." Finding number 28 states: "Flat, calm conditions and the slow five knot patrol speed of LIBERTY in forenoon when she was being looked over initially may well have produced insufficient wind for steaming colors enough to be seen by pilots".[1] The NSA History Report (page 41) states: "... every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag—and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification." "


 * Note that both sides of the issue are covered and that the sources for these opposing points are well-identified, within the text ("The NSA History Report (page 41) states..."). One does not have to refer to each citation in order to determine its origin.
 * Now, an example of a sentence not so identified: During the morning of the attack, early June 8, the ship was overflown by Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft including a Nord Noratlas "flying boxcar" and Mirage III jet fighters eight times.[21][22] At least some of those flybys were from a close range.[23] The planes were hunting for Egyptian submarines.[24]"


 * Note that the last sentence does not state “ Israeli sources state that the planes were hunting for Egyptian submarines.”, it is simply presented as established fact. One is left to follow the link to discover that the source for this sentence is
 * 24 - Oren, Michael: Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (2002).
 * One must do yet further research to discover that Michael Oren is the current Israeli ambassador to the United States! Hardly a neutral source. I have no reason to claim that this particular sentence is fraudulent (although the Liberty survivors' website refers to him as an "Israeli apologist"). However, on this subject, where there is wide disagreement and controversy as to the nature of the attack, and Israel stands accused, I feel it is inappropriate to cite the Israeli ambassador's writings as a simple statement of fact without making it abundantly clear in the text that his is an Israeli perspective.


 * Similarly, I do not believe it appropriate to cite IDF investigations into this attack as unimpeachable sources of fact for the same reasons cited above. However IDF and other Israeli investigations ARE cited numerous times throughout the text as purely factual sources. Who knows, they may be. However, they may instead be a part of a whitewash. Therefore, every time they are used, rather than making one follow the link, they should be called out as Israeli sources in the text, as is done in most instances already, especially in the well-written “Details in Dispute” section. This should always be the case for any source, from any perspective, that might be part of a hidden agenda. Note that when the ADL website is cited,for example, it is always called out in the text, appropriately, I believe.


 * Therefore, would you consider it appropriate to add "Israeli sources state..." whenever they are used? This has been done throughout most of the text, I only propose to make such usage consistent and universal. Or, do you think that that is going too far? Rodney420 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rodney420, I tend to agree with your observations and suggestion. Although, there are several secondary sources who clearly support Israel's claims, but who are not Israeli sources per se.  And I'm aware of one Israeli source who clearly supports American claims.  Thus, for these sources, one cannot use a phrase like, "Israeli sources state..." simply based on the fact that a secondary source appears to favor one side over another.  For these cases, perhaps one could simply write: "Author xyz states that..."


 * Because there is wide disagreement and apparent bias among some secondary sources, I have long advocated limiting sources for contentious parts of this article, in a balanced or two-sided fashion, to primary or near primary sources like the American and Israeli history reports and Court of Inquiry testimony and findings. Most of the purely factual information presented by various secondary sources can be traced back to these primary sources, thus, there should be no problem in their direct usage for this article -- assuming they are not part of an attempt to present an original research finding by an editor.


 * I don't know about others, but when I read an article in an encyclopedia, about a controversial topic, I want it to present me with a balanced set of facts that come from as close to the original sources as possible.Ken (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reenem has returned and continues his pratice of performing a sequence of edits that remove valid factual material, without providing an edit summary or engaging in discussion, and reforming the article to favor the IDF's version-of-events sources. It appears to me that Reenem is more interested in mischief than trying to construct a well-balance and objective Wiki article.Ken (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Upon reviewing WP:EDIT, I believe it's fair to say that Reenem's extensive, sequential and non-summarized edits are disruptive. As such, Reenem's most recent sequence of edits will all be reverted. Of course, Reenem, you are free to contribute, but please do it in a gradual, non-disruptive and summarized fashion, per Wiki edit policy.Ken (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah! The 1RR per 24 hours rule will not allow me to revert all of Reenem's disruptive edits. On the other hand, Reenem can dish out as many disruptive edits as he/she desires in 24 hours. That appears fair to me -- not! Aloha and shalom.Ken (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another example of Reenem's editing:
 * "Beginning at 1:57 p.m.[19] the two-aircraft formation of Israeli Dassault Mirage III fighters following the Liberty dove on the ship and attacked, employing 30mm cannons and rockets,[32] making a total of three attack runs over the ship.[19] The firing also severed antennas and set oil drums on fire.[19] Nine sailors were killed and scores wounded. Among the wounded was Captain William McGonagle, hit in both legs."

Citation number "19" is for a book written by Israeli historian Oren -- who appears to be Reenem's main source. Citation number "32" is for the American NSA history report -- a source that I frequently use and cite for the American side-of-the-story.

The above is typical of the type of edits made by Reenem. All appear appropriate except that when one performs fact-checking, via both primary and secondary sources, it turns out that American sources state a different beginning time (2:00 p.m.) for the attack; do not state that the attack aircraft were "following" the ship, state that gas, not oil, drums that were involved in a fire; and state that Liberty's Captain was wounded in one leg, not both legs.

Whether the attack began at exactly 1:57 or 2:00 p.m. isn't of much consequence; but considering that there is disagreement among sources, it seems appropriate to say "At about 2:00 p.m. ..." instead of stating an exact time. Since there is no mention, in the cited source, of attack aircraft "following" Liberty, this should be fixed too -- as well as the other factual errors presented above.

I do not have time or patience to cite and comment on all of the problematic edits by Reenem. Besides, it appears unlikely that Reenem reads this discussion page anyway. Thus, I'm writing this "for the record", in hope that it will be helpful to others who may be inclined to waste time attempting to constructively edit this article.Ken (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm worried about the sheer amount of single source edits Reenem is making which will make corrections or removal of POV impossible. So far this article is relatively neutral but with Oren being used more often than any other source, it is shifting to little more than a summary of Orens book which is an issue of undue. Of particular concern is this edit (referenced to Oren):"Four F-4B Phantom interceptors with fighter cover were dispatched from the USS America. These jets had been loaded with nuclear weapons when launched. As a result, the jets were immediately recalled, as it was feared that the attackers were Soviet, and fleet commanders would not risk starting a nuclear war without authorization from Washington."Is this correct? I understood they that they were not armed with NW, that it was McNamara who ordered the recall rather than the fleet commander and that it was only speculation by Geis that Washington may have suspected they were as a rational for the first recall. Also, as far as I know disruptive editing can be handled as vandalism if there is some consensus that it is indeed disruptive and he has been warned. Put a warning on his talk page explaining the situation and request that he participate in talk and use summaries.Wayne (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a warning on Reenems talk page. Hopefully he will discuss the problem here.Wayne (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne, you are correct. The "facts" within the passage you quoted are in doubt; i.e., based on hearsay and not direct evidence discovered by Oren or any other author.Ken (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too mentioned Reenem's editing behavior on his/her talk page -- within a topic about his/her Wiki administrator application. Obviously, it made no difference.  Upon reading Reenem's talk page, you will find that he/she has been warned, many times, about poor editing practices in other articles.Ken (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So I did this. Correct me if I'm wrong. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Did I say seven? Its more like 20. Within 1RR: I self-correct. -DePiep (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Now the article is back to where it was before Reenem began his disruptive editing.  Without doubt, the article has lots of room for improvement.  So, I hope Reenem continues his/her interest in contributing to the article, but does so in a gradual and well-explained manner, and participates in discussions herein.Ken (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I re-established my editing suggestion for rearranging McGonagle's and Lucas's testimony. This was inadvertently removed during the above RR.Ken (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Invited Reenem recently. By revert. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * About Reenem: see this cake. Very low Article/Talk ratio. Also, WP:RFA a year ago: |January 2010 (with this userpage), and even recently: January 2011. Strange behaviour editor. Behaves like a Camera plant gone wild. -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too find Reenem's editing behavior strange and hyperactive. Until proven otherwise, I'll assume Reenem is acting in good-faith; although, apparent reluctance to participate in discussions herein makes one wonder.Ken (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. AGF and strange edits. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change the first paragraph of "Air and sea attacks" subsection
I propose the following changes to the first paragraph of "Air and sea attacks" subsection:


 * Beginning about 2 p.m., the Liberty was attacked by several IAF aircraft, initially by two Mirage IIIs, employing cannon, rockets and bombs,[30] {change to: "cannon and rockets" i.e., delete: "bombs"} followed by two Dassault Mysteres carrying napalm  {add word: "bombs"}. One napalm bomb hit the ship.[31] The leader of the Mirage formation identified the ship as a destroyer, mistaking the off-center fed parabolic antenna on its forecastle for a gun.{Cannot find reliable source for this.  Need citation or delete} The fact that the ship had Latin markings led IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin to fear that the ship was Soviet; he ordered the planes and a three torpedo boat squadron that had been ordered into the area to withhold fire pending positive identification of the ship, and sent in two helicopters to search for survivors.{Need to expand to say that pilots saw Latin markings during attack; need citation too}  These radio communications were recorded by Israel.{need citation or delete}  The order also was recorded in the ship's log,{what ship's log? Need clarification; i.e., "recorded in the motor topedo boat division's logbook"} although the commander of the torpedo boat squadron{sources say "division," not "squadron"} stated that he had not received it.[32]

The article needs more work than what's presented above, but let's begin with this. I'll wait for comments or counter-suggestions, before proceeding with any significant changes.Ken (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the above proposed changes, I believe that the paragraph should reflect that it's mostly based on Israel's version-of-events, as described in Israeli investigative reports, and not necessarily well-established or irrefutable fact. The same holds true for content that's based mostly on the USA's version-of-events.Ken (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Below is an edit candidate. It lacks citations. But I'm confident that acceptable sources for each statement exist and, of course, citations need to be added before changes are made to the article.
 * Beginning about 2 p.m., the Liberty was attacked by several aircraft.{cite} Israeli sources say that the air attack involved two Dassault Mirage IIIs with 30mm automatic cannon, followed by two Dassault Mysteres carrying napalm bombs.{cite}  At least one napalm bomb directly hit the ship.{cite}  During the air attack, Israeli sources say that one Mystere pilot noticed Latin, as opposed to Arabic, markings on the ship.{cite}  This led the Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin, to fear that the ship was Soviet; thus, he ordered the planes, and a three torpedo boat division that was previously ordered into the area, to withhold fire pending positive identification of the ship.{cite}  This was followed by an order to dispatch two helicopters to the attack location for the purpose of survivor location and recovery.{cite}  The "hold fire" order was recorded in the motor torpedo boat division's logbook, but the division commander said he never received the order.{cite}

I believe this fullfills the edit goals expressed previously.Ken (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If nobody comments (pro or con) on the above proposed change within about one week from now, I'll assume nobody has issues with the change.Ken (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This procedure, esp the seven days period, is even more than correct. (Nothing on the content). -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, if only I could somehow interest other editors of this article to engage in discussion, it would make the overall editing process more robust and less frustrating.Ken (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been late on implementing above proposed change. Need to check and apply citations.  Will try to complete soon.Ken (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Contribution by IP address 72.35.208.4
Somebody at IP address 72.35.208.4 wants to add: Conceptually, I see nothing inappropriate with this except it needs some fixing. I suggest the following: I believe the above clearly and accurately represent Ennes' motive theory and its location in his book. In my copy of the Ennes book there is no such theory presented on pages 254-262. Instead, it's in the book's Epilogue, on pages 209-216.
 * "Author and former crew member James M. Ennes argued in Assault on the Liberty that the objective was to hide preparations for invading Syria, which the White House opposed (pp. 254-262)."
 * Author and former crew member James M. Ennes theorized, in the Epilogue of his book Assault on the Liberty, that the motive was removal of a signal intercept resource (i.e. USS Liberty) that might detect Israel's preparations for invading Syria -- an invasion that the White House opposed.

Given the above explanation, I'm reverting 72.35.208.4 contribution and directing him/her to this discussion page.Ken (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 72.35.208.4 doesn't want to engage in discussion. Thus, in the spirit of assuming good faith, I'll apply my suggested edit to his/her edit -- recently reinstated by a second anonymous editor.Ken (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As I write this, the current edit for the above statement is: I believe this is a fairly accurate and brief statement that represents Ennes' motive theory. In other words, Ennes did NOT theorize that the IDF was overly concerned about Liberty's crew discovering an intent to invade Syria (the intent to invade was a given, as evidenced in State Department messages); rather, he theorized that the IDF was concerned about the various types of signal intelligence that could be acquired during the invasion. Here's an abridged version of Ennes writing: To represent Ennes' theory as being other than the above is to misrepresent his theory.Ken (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Author and former crew member James M. Ennes theorized, in the epilogue of his book Assault on the Liberty, that the motive was to prevent the ship's crew from monitoring radio traffic for the impending invasion of Syria, which the White House opposed."
 * "A well-equipped electronic intelligence-collection platform [, like Liberty,] could have learned a great deal about the tactics, procedures, morale, discipline, order-of-battle and military objectives of both sides. And the lessons learned would have helped to build a data base of radio frequencies, call signs, unit identities and other information that would have helped to interpret and forecast other battles to be fought at other times and places.  Indeed, any good [Israeli] intelligence officer must have concluded that Liberty was an intelligence ship [capable of the above and, thus, it had to be disabled, as a preventative measure, before proceeding with the invasion]."

What seems to be at issue here is whether or not Ennes theorized that the ship was attacked to prevent the U.S. from "detecting" Israel invading Syria. This was not his theory. Instead, Ennes theorized that Israel was concerned that SIGINT collected by Liberty would reveal, among other things, that Israel was the aggressor during an invasion; i.e., the "military objectives of both sides" aspect quoted above, from Ennes' book.Ken (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Classification as an Article that Falls Within the Scope of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
In what manner does the content of this article relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Why does this article fall under WPP:1RR under Arab-Israeli Conflict Classification when it is solely an incident between Israeli and US forces? -JsyBird2532 (talk) 23:16, 03 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The incident occurred during the 1967 war between Arab-States and Israel; so, I suspect that this was the basis for relating the article to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But your point is valid; by itself, this wiki article is solely about an incident between Israeli and US military forces.Ken (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I still don't get how the fact that this takes place during the Six-Day-War is relevant. I for one actually did a search for "Palestinian" in the document itself using the find function of my broswer and didn't get a single result.  In addition, there is no mention of anything related to Arabs in the document except concerning the IDF's stated confusion over the ship being a hostile foreign Arab one, some assistance in the investigation afterwards, and a mention of how the "Arabs" didn't want the United States involved in the war.  In my sincere opinion there is truly no correlation to the conflict here itself that warrants this article being branded as related to the Israeli-Arab conflict.  However, the article is still indeed a bit of a sensitive subject, particularly with Americans.  Maybe it would be beneficial to keep this article under 1RR but for a separate reason.  -JsyBird2532 (talk) 18:16, 05 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Ken (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember The USS Liberty Day
In March 2011, Michigan House Resolution 0044 was introduced, memorializing June 8 as "Remember The USS Liberty Day."

Petey Parrot (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

JVL Mitchell G. Bard article citations
If I remember rightly, when the Jewish Virtual Library has been discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the consensus reached was that the reliability of articles from that source would be judged individually and would depend on who the authors were. I should think that it was considered that any article from there written by Mitchell G. Bard, as two of the sources cited are, would fall into the non-reliable category. My suggestion is that more reliable sources be found to verify the information currently cited to the two Bard articles.    ←   ZScarpia  00:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed the Bard citation and the statement attributed to it from the Lead.    ←   ZScarpia  20:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC) (Apologies: I forgot to add a summary for my article edit)

The JVL Bard source was cited for the statement: on December 17, 1987, the issue was officially closed by the two governments through an exchange of diplomatic notes. Having done a Google Scholar search and also searched the archives of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post, it looks to me as though what the JVL is referring to happened in 1980, not 1987, just before Israel made its final compensation payment of $6M. The age of apology: facing up to the past, by Mark Gibney, page 15: "The Israeli and U.S. governments finally resolved the diplomatic aspects of the incident by an exchange of diplomatic notes on December 17, 1980, without either country accepting responsibility." USSLiberty.org exhibit 33: "On December 17, 1980, the Department of State announced that the U.S. Government had accepted an Israeli proposal to pay $6 million as final settlement of the U.S. claim for compensation for damage to the Liberty. (Department of State Bulletin, February 1981, p. 55)"      ←   ZScarpia  15:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Candidate external links from the WRMEA
Some articles from the WRMEA which it might be worth listing in the External Links section:


 * How LBJ's Vietnam War Paralyzed His Mideast Policymakers, Grace Halsell, June 1993.
 * The Assault on the USS Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years, James M. Ennes Jr., June 1993.
 * Book Review: Assault on the Liberty, George Smalley, 19 April 1982.

   ←   ZScarpia  00:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WRMEA is NOT a reliable source. They have been exposed as writing many fraudulent articles and have trouble listing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.36.234 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * External links don't have to be reliable sources, merely worthwhile listing. Which fraudulent articles of the WRMEA did you have in mind?      ←   ZScarpia  20:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune and edits by anon
A anon has been disputing the wording used by the Chicago Tribune and has reverted to his version several times. The source is reliable so I invite the anon to discuss his concerns here as it may be possible to change the wording used if not the context. Wayne (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing the discussion here. I think the anon has some legitimate concerns. While the Chicago Tribune is a reliable source, we should not generalize beyond what the article says or the basis for its claims. "To a man, the survivors interviewed by the Tribune rejected Israel's explanation" (quoting the Tribune) does not support "All remaining survivors when interviewed..." in our article. Also the Tribune's claim that "Except for McNamara, most senior administration officials from Secretary of State Dean Rusk on down privately agreed with Johnson's intelligence adviser, Clark Clifford, who was quoted in minutes of a National Security Council staff meeting as saying it was "inconceivable" that the attack had been a case of mistaken identity." is based on its analysis of White House Documents from the time of the incident (e.g. meeting minutes) and does not support a claim that "...most senior administration officials involved in the incident, do not accept or continue to dispute these official findings...". --agr (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Earlier in the article the Tribune did say that they had interviewed all the survivors that could be located. I'll have a look for another source to support "all survivors" as I believe all the survivors do belong to the Liberty organisation that supports a congressional inquiry. As for "most" we do say here "involved in the incident" which limits officials to those in office at the time of the incident. Wording is the problem as it is difficult to lay it out clearly and additional sources would be good as well. Wayne (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A solution might be to spell it out, e.g. "in 2007, the Chicago Tribune attempted to contact all Liberty survivors and every one it located agreed that..." As for officials, the Tribune seems to be reporting early reactions. There was a subsequent board of inquiry and top secret official history that represented more considered opinions. Again we should attribute the comment in the text, e.g "the Tribune also reported that..."--agr (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Arnold's idea, with some modifications -- "In 2007, investigative reporter John M. Crewdson, of the Chicago Tribune, attempted to contact all attack survivors. The ones he located all agreed that..."
 * As to the magnitude of USG officials (both living and dead), who were somehow involved with the attack and who disagree with the official history, it's anybody's guess -- more than one, but less than all.
 * Also, some officials, like Clark Clifford, accepted that it was a mistake, but not an innocent mistake. In other words, there are three primary viewpoints: innocent mistake, gross negligence mistake, and not a mistake.Ken (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Ken's suggestion for the survivors and agr's for the officials. Could be the best way to phrase it. Wayne (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added it to the article but played around with it for grammar and flow. See what you think. Wayne (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it needs a bit more wordsmithing. How about this:
 * "In 2007, investigative reporter John M. Crewdson, while writing an article about the attack for the Chicago Tribune, attempted to contact all remaining attack survivors. Of those contacted, "to a man" they rejected Israel's mistaken identity explanation.  In addition, the Tribune article said that most senior administration officials, involved with the incident, did not believe that the attack was a mistake."Ken (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Wayne (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Adios and good Luck...
I wish all who contribute to this article good luck in your efforts to tell the story based on conflicting "reliable" secondary sources. I have yet to find a completely reliable secondary source; they all tend to spin and embellish the story to fit their POV. And, of course, this article has a history of OR and POV oriented contributions. My recommendation is to limit sources to only official accounts of the attack; e.g., investigation reports, messages, NSA and IDF History Reports, etc. Otherwise, you enter the land of rubber walls that endlessly bounces you around from one "reliable" secondary source to another.

And watchout for low flying turkeys; if you get hit by one, it can ruin your day...

Adios Ken (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another good editor lost. Source-minded one. Need a template & a category for these. Needs research. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll visit from time-to-time, to see how things are evolving (or devolving), but no plans to spend significant time with future editing.Ken (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lately, I find myself going far beyond occassionally monitoring this article. As can be seen below, I got caught up in reverting edits and discussing the merits of various sources. Time to say adios, again...Ken (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Link for the latest discussion in edit summaries
may be useful. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material.
It doesn't really matter if you think that the Chanel 2 is wrong the source clearly says that the tapes are newly revealed and were first aired on Chanel 2.Wikipedia its a about verifiability and not truth.So word "wrong" is irrelevant is this context. --Shrike (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about truth. If there is strong reason to believe that something isn't true, then it shouldn't be included, whether a source supports the claim or not. The current wording in the WP:V policy is unfortunate. Hopefully, that flaw will be fixed soon (i.e. in a few month from now). --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrike, I did not issue an opinion or belief about Channel-2's statements of fact, it's simply that direct evidence (i.e., the primary source) does not agree with Channel-2's factual calims. In short, the factual claims by Channel-2 misrepresent the primary source -- they are "wrong."  In a similar manner, any opinions or findings expressed by Channel-2, that it claims are supported by the misrepresented facts, are unreliable; i.e., not Wikipedia worthy.Ken (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dоеs this record were aired before?--Shrike (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the following NSA web pages:
 * http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/
 * http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/recordings.shtml
 * The transcripts have been in the public domain (i.e., "aired") since mid-2003. Also, the transcripts do not contain communications between the attack-pilots and their ground controller, as claimed by Channel-2.Ken (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Aired is not the same as revealed I think it was the first time it was played in the public.--Shrike (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The transcripts have been in the public domain since 2003, and displayed on the NSA website for anybody to review at any time. Channel-2 claims the transcripts are new and recently released, Channel-2 is wrong.  This may be the first time you and others have become aware of the transcripts, but they have been in the public domain for almost 9 years.Ken (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop playing games.It was first time it was aired in audio.Only transcripts were available.--Shrike (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrike, in what sense do the Channel2 outings add anything to the 2003 sources? If they only confirm, there is no need to add them (being in Hebrew). If they have been edited (reduced), they are useless. If they add substance, please point out. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From the first link: "collection of documents and audio recordings and transcripts previously posted to the site on 02 July 2003." Contemporaneous CNN article, and CNN video report, where they play the tapes. Msgohan (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, Msgohan, what is your point? -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a response to Shrike's claim above that only transcripts were previously available. I don't know why you added another indent to my text, but that's why it looks like a reply to you instead. Msgohan (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it, thanx. And I added a indent because I do not know the usage you did: the meaning of the same indenting level. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrike, no games are being played. The transcripts and recordings (perhaps I should have been more explicit) have been in the public domain since mid-2003.  And, as Msgohan discovered, they were "played" by media outlets long before Israel's Channel-2 jumped on the bandwagon.  I believe your complaint should be directed toward Channel-2 for sloppy research and misrepresentation of the facts, not to anybody here.Ken (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Who messed-up the lead-in to this subtopic? Whoever it was, please correct. Thanks.Ken (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Msgohan, thanks for the repair -- and contributions above.Ken (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Congressional investigation
Another sourced-material removal incident. This time it's the claim of no Congressional investigation being performed. The material in question is from a well-regarded source (Charles K. Ebinger of the Brookings Institution), and there is direct evidence (correspondance from Congressional librarian) to support (i.e.,verify) the source's claim. The anonymous person who removed the material claimed the source was wrong, but offered no reference for supporting his/her counter-claim.

As evidenced above, I have no problem with removal of sourced-material that is not from a well-regarded source, cannot be verified, or can be shown to misrepresent primary sources, but this does not seem to be the case here.

Likely, the source for the anonymous editor's claim of "5 Congressional investigations" can be traced back to a book by A. J. Cristol -- one of the sources for this article. But to date, I'm not aware of any evidence that supports Mr. Cristol's claim. Rather, there is direct evidence that refutes his claim. Thus, for this matter, Mr. Cristol appears to be an unreliable source.Ken (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * An op-ed article cannot be considered a reliable secondary source for this type of factual claim. In contrast, the published book "The Liberty incident: the 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S. Navy spy ship" by A. Jay Cristol, a recognized expert on this incident, is a reliable source. Marokwitz (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles K. Ebinger is an energy expert what authority he have as a military historian?--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Recognised by who? A. Jay Cristol himself says he is an "amateur historian". Cristol can not be considered a reliable source for this claim due to COI. The Liberty survivors made this claim long before Brookings did. If the claim made by Brookings is incorrect then a Congressional source can easily be found to refute it as it will be public record. Provide it and the claim can be deleted. Ebinger is also an expert on geopolitics and the military. Wayne (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim was also part of an official complaint of judicial misconduct by the Liberty survivors against Cristol in the 11th Circuit court. Among a laundry list of problems with his book, that Cristol's claim of "five Congressional investigations" was misleading as they were not investigations into culpability. That it was part of a legal document supports Ebinger. Wayne (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Quote: After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty. LC Control Number: 98135843. - Librarian of Congress July 25, 2006 Wayne (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you give a link to the court documents please?--Shrike (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrike, Here's a source: http://www.ussliberty.org/thebiglie.htm You may find it disagreeable.  If so, I suggest repeating the question to a librarian at the Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/rr/askalib/ -- nothing beats hearing an answer directly from a primary source.Ken (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So no original documents exist I see.I think its so hard to provide a scan of such documents.--Shrike (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The librarian's answer was via email, not a paper document. You can test its validity by asking the librarian the same original question, via email.  Meanwhile, I'll search for an on-line copy of an official letter from by a U.S. Navy JAG officer that effectively says the same thing.Ken (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a text copy of the JAG letter: http://www.ussliberty.org/jagc.txt As you can read, it does not say there was a congressional investigation, only that the navy conducted a Court of Inquiry.  If you do not trust the text copy as faithfully representing the actual letter, then I suggest you research the matter yourself via the JAG contact listed in the letter.Ken (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I may have misunderstood your request. Here's the primary source for the USS Liberty Count of Inquiry records: http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/jagman_investigations.htm Ken (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To date, the most reliable and extremely well-referenced secondary source I've found is James Scott's book, "The Attack on the Liberty: The untold story of Israel's deadly 1967 assault on a U.S. spy ship", But, like all secondary sources for this subject, it too is not 100% reliable, and they all contain various degrees of opinion and unsupported assertion of fact.  (Thus, the reason I advocate use of only primary sources, and official American and Israeli history reports for this article.)  Anyway, for the matter at hand, there is public domain correspondence from a Library of Congress reference librarian that says: "After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty."  Of course, the librarian could be wrong or the correspondence a fraud, but nobody has found and presented evidence that counters the librarian's finding.  Nonetheless, in his Op Ed article, Mr. Ebinger does not provide a primary reference or direct evidence to support his factual claim, even though it appears true; so, in strict accordance with WP, it should be removed -- regardless of its integrity.  Now, going forward, let's apply this same standard to other secondary source material within the article -- let the deletion begin!Ken (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It all may be true(or not) but according to Wikipedia policies we should use reliable secondary source a opinion piece by energy expert is not a good source--Shrike (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I agree. Although, even a "reliable" or expert secondary source needs to provide verifiable attribution or credible direct evidence for any factual claims (whether the claims be true of false).  And if allowed, unsupported claims should be clearly stated or presented as a source's opinion or preception, not fact.Ken (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)  In this regard, there is much work to be done before the "USS Liberty Incident" article becomes compliant with WP.Ken (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim at issue here, that the Liberty incident is "the only maritime incident in U.S. history where U.S. military forces were killed that was never investigated by the United States Congress," needs to be examined carefully.

First of all, it needs a qualification about war time. Surly the Congress did not investigate every maritime incident in World War II where U.S. military forces were killed. And what counts as a maritime incident? Does Congress investigate every accident at sea where a service person is killed? What about Coast Guard members who are killed in drug interdictions or at sea rescues? Finally, does anyone claim to have a list of every such incident dating back to 1789 with a reference to the Congressional investigation that ensued? Is it kept up to date? Statements that assert "X is the only Y in history" are extremely hard to substantiate. Our policy is that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Clearly, the Liberty survivors and their supporters feel strongly that the Israeli attack on the Liberty has never been properly investigated. That they have this concern belongs in the article, with attribution. But if someone were to come up with another clear cut maritime incident where U.S. military forces were killed that was not investigated by Congress, or some obscure Congressional hearing that opined on the events, I doubt it would assuage the survivor's concerns one bit. We should not report over-broad rhetorical assertions as fact. --agr (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Arnold hit the nail on the head: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." So far, based on available evidence and sources, it appears that WP will support somebody writing, in effect, that the incident was not investigated by the United States Congress -- assuming that somebody can find a "reliable" primary or secordary source for attribution.  I doubt that this approach will satisfy those who want the article to say that the incident was fully investigated, or those who want it to say it was not fully investigated.  Frankly, the article should not be about satisfying anybody's point of view, it should focus on presenting well-sourced matters of fact.Ken (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick search of Scott's book yielded no mention of a Congressional investigation; although, he well-covers various congressional meetings and actions that included references to the Liberty incident, and implies that there was only marginal Congressional interest overall. Of course, not saying there was an investigation does not mean there was no investigation.  Whatever the case, there surely would be a record of an investigation, and none can be found.  Anyway, perhaps it's best to simply do as Scott did: write about what occurred, not what did not occur.Ken (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not fix it as we do for other articles? IE: "According to James Ennes, in reply to claims in A. J. Cristol's book that the attack was properly investigated, Liberty survivors have sought details of any investigations from the Navy Judge Advocate General, from the Library of Congress, from the Congressional Research Service and from any other relevant government agency and been consistently informed that there has never been any congressional investigation, making the Liberty incident the only maritime peacetime incident in U.S. history where U.S. military forces were killed that was never fully investigated by the United States Congress". Another source is O'Keefe from WMREA who also investigated the claim and found it to be true. Wayne (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, this seems like a reasonable approach, as long as the phrase "making the Liberty incident the only maritime peacetime incident in U.S. history where U.S. military forces were killed that was never fully investigated by the United States Congress" is a direct quote from Ennes, and presented as his opinion and not necessarily fact. In a like manner, A. J. Cristol's opinion that 5 congressional investigations have been conducted should also appear, to fairly represent the widely different opinions for this matter.  Of course, the source(s) for all quotes needs to be properly attributed.  And I would stay away from trying to squeeze all of this into the introduction -- it far exceeds being a brief overview of the incident.  An appropriate place is likely somewhere within the "Investigations of the attack" subtopic which, of course, does not include a congressional investigation of the incident, on its list of investigations.Ken (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The exact quote is "Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty remains the only major maritime [peacetime] incident in American history [where U.S. military forces were killed] not investigated by Congress." This is Ennes' rebuttal of Cristol's claim. Probably even damning enough to discredit Cristol as a RS for the investigations. Wayne (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we accept Ennes claims?Why its better then Cristol's?--Shrike (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd give Ennes points for providing evidence whereas Cristol has declined to do so. Wayne (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't found any evidence only his own words.--Shrike (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrike, Attempting to prove a negative (i.e., no congressional investigations) is virtually impossible. About the best one can say is that after searching and asking people who should know, no evidence of investiagtions was found; thus, apparently there were no investigations.  Of course, this does not rule out the possibility; i.e., prove the negative.  On the other hand, A.J. Cristol, who makes the exceptional claim of five congessional investigations, has offered a bit of evidence, but upon inspection none has shown itself to support his claim.Ken (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrike and Wayne, I suggest approaching this as a neutral party writing a story about Ennes's V/S Cristol's claims, not trying to prove one wrong and the other right.Ken (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Terence O’Keefe wrote this article and independently investigated the claims. In another article O’Keefe posted the reply he received from the Congressional Information Service and states that the Liberty survivors have offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can prove Cristol’s claim that there has been a congressional investigation. There is also this pro-Cristol article in the JTA that briefly mentions both positions which supports that the no investigations belief is widely held by survivors. Wayne (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne, I leave it to you and Shrike to work through this. I'm spending far too much time on this matter.Ken (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think my suggestion above covers it reasonably well and we use both the O’Keefe and Ennes references to support it. What do you say Shrike? Wayne (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can include both views and give attribution to each view.--Shrike (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reenem is back -- and up to his usual mischief
This will be interesting. I wonder how long it will take for the article to morph into the "USS Liberty attack according to User:Reenem" and, of course, his most unbiased and reliable source: Israeli Ambassador Oren. Reenem is performing like a disruptive agent (e.g., many and massive sequential edits), intent on putting his spin on the article, rather than a truly objective researcher and careful editor.

There seems to be a tendency by a few editors -- Reenem among them -- to relate events, synthesized or misreported by various secondary sources, as if they were factual and without doubt. Clearly, Reenem relies on Israeli Ambassador Oren's book for facts, when it can be easily shown that Oren's facts sometimes do not agree with primary sources. For example, within Reenem's recent edits, he has McGonagle sunbathing immediately before the attack when, according to several primary sources (including McGonagle's Court of Inquiry testimony), McGonagle was on the command bridge for at least one hour before the attack and when the attack began. Also, Reenem says that McGonagle was wounded in both legs -- another "fact" not supported by primary sources. The list is long, and I'm quickly growing bored of all of this nonsense.

Once more, I bid all in Wikiland, adieu...Ken (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Before moving on, I believe it's worth noting that the one and only time that Reenem commented his editing, he said: "Putting some more info on the attack. There also should be less testimony in there, it complicates and lengthens things, and users can access the sources to read the full testimony." Regardless of what Reenem said, his editing efforts did not shorten content or make it any less complicated. Reenem's editing removed neutral quoted material -- taken directly from primary sources -- and, to a great extent, replaced it with paraphrase content from a few secondary sources that, for the most part, are well-known to favor the Israeli version of events. Of course, Reenem's opinion that "users can access the sources to read the full testimony" can be applied to the entire article, and Wiki in general; i.e., users don't need to read the article or any other Wiki content, they can (and should) simply read sources directly instead.Ken (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Friendly fire example revisited.
In 2008 there was a discussion regarding the reliability of the claim ''Accidents do occur in wartime. The day before the attack on the Liberty, Israeli aircraft had bombed an Israeli armored column south of the West Bank town of Jenin, demonstrating such mistakes do happen.[62]'' The IDF, who even recorded near miss friendly fire incidents, have no record of this incident and the very earliest mention is from 1984. The source given was the Jewish Virtual Library which cited the September 1984 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. All the tertiary sources cite the same secondary source, Goodman and Schiff's 1984 article which is on pages 78-84, and there is no primary source. The result of the discussion was "keep" based on the policy of verifiability not truth and the source was changed to the Atlantic Monthly (it is a pay per view website but this particular article was never archived so no longer exists online), with the JVL to be used as verification per WP:RS "...sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article...". However, the JVL has now deleted the claim from it's article on the Liberty. This suggests that the JVL no longer considers the claim reliable and now supports removal of the claim from this article. Comments? Wayne (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Generally, JVL articles about the attack (mostly written by Bard) are not a reliable source. For this JVL article's subtopic, it becomes evident as early as the second sentence that says: "Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake."  A hyperlink is provided on the word "investigation" that links to another JVL page that contains a list of 11 investigations with a brief description of each investigation.  When reading the descriptions, it quickly becomes evident that few entries on the list are truly investigations, and only about four can be construed as concluding or stating the attack was a mistake.  Thus, the reference doesn't support the claim and renders it unreliable.  This pattern of poorly supported or exaggerated claims is representative of Bard's writings on this matter.Ken (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Orna Katz-Atar
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/the-makings-of-history-myth-vs-plot-1.413451 She concentrates on the sources of the claim that Israel bombarded the ship maliciously. According to her, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson himself and a number of top officials in his administration were responsible for spreading that version of events.


 * Notable enough to mention her theory? Hcobb (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many people with many "theories" about various aspects of this incident. My reading of the Haaretz article is that Orna Katz-Atar is working to establish her creditability/reliability on this subject matter, but the Haaretz article's author (Tom Segev) finds that some claims in her thesis are not convincing or silly.  So, at this point, she does not appear to be a recognized authority.Ken (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead
The lead contained violations of WP:SYNTH and utilized emotive words not utilized in the cited sources. Furthermore, the Lead contained detailed positions and beliefs concerning the attack, more suitable for the body text. Moreover, these opinions were overwhelmingly reflective of one position when a greater number of scholarly sources (including Michael Oren, Chaim Herzog, Zeev Schiff, Tom Segev, Leslie Stein, Mathew Gray, J.N Westwood, A. Jay Cristol, Randolph S. Churchill and Winston S. Churchill) maintain positions that are opposite from those expressed in the lead. These countering opinions could have just as easily been placed in the lead making the lead too verbose and unwieldy. Rather than adding countering opinions, I trimmed it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

McCain Confronted on USS Liberty Cover-up & Media Accomplices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2d0CKXy8HQ&feature=g-all-u Israel's Intentional Attack on the USS Liberty: Still Suppressed by the Media

The video has snippets of the reporter, and survivor of the attack (who attested that their life-rafts were opened fired on.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.177 (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Protest image caption
There seems to be an edit war in progress over the caption for the article's image of two protests holding up a sign regarding the Liberty incident File:06-10-07-USSLibertyatCongress.JPG. The question revolves over whether the protester are pro-Palistinian. I would point out that the photographer has a category for her images on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:User_CarolMooreDC, in chronological order. The image in question is dated 6-190--2007 and there are two other pictures from the same date, all at the U.S. Capital. In one, File:06-10-07-CNIatCongress.JPG a very similar sign is being held up and it is identified in the file description as a "Council for the National Interest banner at End the Occupation of Palestine rally" on that date. The other is also identified as being at a an "end the occupation" of Palestine rally at the U.S. Capitol. I think it is fair to infer that the image in question was taken at the same rally. If not, perhaps the photographer can clear this up for us. If we cannot put the image in some context, then I do not think it should be used. --agr (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you just resolved the problem. I invite anyone who continues to remove the description to explain why.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether the protesters are "pro-Palestinian". The point is that is it OR to conclude that from clothing, or from inferrings mentioned here. It is your own sugestion to link these topics here. And there is WP:CAPTION which described what a caption should be. A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article. The wording "pro-Palestinian" is not related to the article at all. That irrelevance is another reason to keep that out of the caption. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * DePiep, do you dispute that the picture was taken at an "End the Occupation of Palestine rally"? I you do, we can ask the photographer to clarify the point. However if that is where the photo was taken, that fact belongs in the caption. As WP:CAPTION states one role for a caption is "Providing context for the picture. A picture captures only one moment in time. What happened before and after? What happened outside the frame?" That seems particularly relevant here.--agr (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever things you may find in "the context" of the picture (a fellow editor as a RS really?): you associate your findings with the article. (1) That is OR. Apart from the pictured text and the way more relevant and as yet undisputed fact that it was taken on a demonstration in Washington D.C., 2007 (why not put some of that in the caption?), no context pertains to the article. (2) It is irrelevant to the article. -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The caption I would propose is "Demonstrators at an End the Occupation of Palestine rally at the U.S. Capitol in 2007." Is that acceptable? I would note that we generally rely on the information provided by those who upload photos, but if we are really uncertain about the circumstances of this image, it should not be used at all. The fact that two men held up a sign about the Liberty incident five years ago is hardly notable.--agr (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. But note that Depiep is currently blocked and is unable to chime in.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. The block apparently expires tonight. We should wait for his response. --agr (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again: the word "Palestine" is OR and irrelevant here. And the proposal is long, weasily, and such. Why not just say: "Protest at Washington D.C., 2007". The picture does the rest. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By your standards, the facts that the sign was displayed in Washington D.C. and in 2007 are OR. And I don't see why those facts are more relevant than the sponsors of the demonstration. If it just shows two random guys holding up a sign about the Liberty, I don't see why the image belongs in the article at all.--agr (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't push me as a standard. Read again. -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Could you rephrase?--agr (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Image removed pending discussion
The image of two men caring a protest sign has become the subject of continued edit warring. I have removed the image in the hope we can discuss it here and find a consensus, either amongst the editors here or through Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies. Please read the note at the top of this talk page. Edit warring is strictly forbidden on this article and those who engage in it are subject to immediate blocking. In particular there is a one revert per 24 hour rule in place on this article. --agr (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are probably wasting your time unfortunately. 1RR and policy in general don't have any effect on the behavior of sockpuppets in the ARBPIA topic area and Samo.head looks just another AndresHerutJaim sock. See AndresHerutJaimSebinisra91Jabotito48Tutangamon8HGasmaBach AriaTaurniulJosHall 93FarkurMedioticTaurui01PararreiMerlinsackWikiPoun. I'll file a report at SPI.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would't be too quick to give up on finding a resolution. The specific issue here has good arguments on both sides and deals with an a question Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't seem to cover fully as far as I can see, proper identification of a contentious image. My hope was that removing the image, which is not central to the article, would encourage a resumption of the conversation. Let's give it some time.--agr (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping the issue would resolve itself but as it has not I'll put in my two cents. The image may have been taken at a pro-Palestinian rally but the protesters do not look Palestinian and may just have been supporting a rally against the occupation or the USS Liberty crew. You certainly dont need to be pro-Palestinian to support those causes. Saying they are pro-Palestinian may be of no consequence in an Arab/Israeli article but this article is not an Arab/Israeli article so nothing is lost by calling them simply protesters. Likewise nothing is gained by naming the rally as this could give the erronous impression that the subjects are linked, possibly implying that the Liberty dispute is merely a facet of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. This appears to have been the intent of the anon who changed the title. I can't understand why he wasn't blocked for 3RR let alone 1RR which would have prevented the edit war. The pictures Arabic caption says simply protesters carrying a banner on June 10, 2007 in Washington DC. The original long standing (and accurate) title was Protesters at a 2007 rally and that should be sufficient titling for the picture in this article. Wayne (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The image in question Image:06-10-07-USSLibertyatCongress.JPG carries a strong message ""Support USS Liberty crew killed by Israel and betrayed by America." If some one added the sign's text to the article we'd remove it as vandalism. Even if they added the text "Protesters at the US Capital in 2007 carried signs saying 'Support USS Liberty crew killed by Israel and betrayed by America.'" we'd demand to know who the protestors were and only include it if they were notable and relevant to the subject. It should not be possible to insert any message one wants in a Wikipedia article by making a sign and getting photographed holding it. At the very least, we should expect to know who is making the protest.--agr (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the right thing to do. The image adds no significant information to the article, and there is nothing in the article that's about the image's content.Ken (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. Removal doesn't hurt the article and no picture no dispute. Wayne (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion is only about the caption, not the picture itself. I reverted, and did rm the caption. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the two comments previous to yours, you'll see that the appropriateness of the picture is being disputed. --agr (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Either the picture has a proper caption, one that describes what it's showing and/or in what circumstances it was taken (that means it will include information about what kind of demonstration this was or who the people holding it are) or it shouldn't appear in the article at all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was a battle. Now what? -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

efforts to blame egypt?
There seems to be an awful lot of purported evidence on the web of a deliberate effort to blame Egypt, which from an investigative point of view, might tend to suggest, along with the sheer length of the attack {and fact it was in international waters and was obviously a 'spy's hip} that this wasn't an accident. I don't think it's possible to be absolutely 'conclusory' and I hesitate to start a section because it seems like this must have come up before and was rejected?

http://atrueott.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/uss-liberty-operation-cyanide-incredible-disclosures-of-israeli-american-false-flag/

I'm sure there are a lot of anti-Semitic sites that might assert that there was an effort to blame Egypt {as in the Lavon Affair} but it doesn't follow, as a matter of logic, that the assertion is per se untrue or is per se 'anti-Semitic'.

It also seems that the survivors very largely feel that the attack simply could not have been a mistake. Their view would seem to hold more analytical water than after-the fact bureaucratic investigations or Israeli/Zionist apologists who merely *presuppose* it wasn't deliberate.

Thoughts? - //nc70 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.36.79 (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So, what does all of this have to do with the article's content, sources or editing? If you want to engage in a POV discussion about the attack, I suggest you go elsewhere. Ken (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed; these comments have little to do with the content. (Pardon the lack of wikipedia correctness, I am a rare contributor) Dana 20:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The people who troll Wikipedia love to give the view that there was no foul play, in fact A LOT of effort went into blaming Egypt, thus drawing America into the war. It back-fired. Shame people don't bother learning the real facts though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.172.196 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Without Reliable Sources to back up your statement, I'm afraid it's just so much tin-foil hat gibberish.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Shouldn't this use Infobox military conflict? That infobox work quite nicely for battles (mistaken identity doesn't change that this was a battle). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (why wouldn't mistaken identity change that this was a battle?) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would it? A battle is a battle.  There's no reason mistaken identity would make a battle not be a battle.  Still, let's not get too into a semantics debate here. Even if your definition of "battle" excludes mistaken identity, the question here is what infobox to use. If we debate the definition of battle, it should be for the purpose of deciding what infobox to use. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a battle. And claiming "identity mistaking" is not a fact. -DePiep (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll go add and add it. When experimenting in my sandbox, I found out that this wouldn't be as significant a change as I thought it would be. I could be wrong, but looks like the infobox that's there is just an out-of-date subseted Infobox military conflict anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll revert it pending an actual consensus. Also, never mark your edits as minor when you know very well that they aren't.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 12:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How's that not minor. What's the significant difference between this and this other then the old one using an subseted Infobox military conflict? If you object to the template not being subseted, why didn't you subset the current fleshed-out version. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting everything else aside, its not minor because I oppose it and I opposed it on the talk page before you put it in. I don't know you so I don't know if you are being disingenuous or you really don't get it. If it's the latter see Help:Minor edit.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't release you were opposing it, I thought you were just questioning my definition of battle. If you oppose Infobox military conflict because you don't conceder this a battle, what does that have to do with weather it's subseted or fleshed out? Shouldn't you oppose it being there at all? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention this earlier. ·I took a better look, and comparing this and this, the old template is almost certainly a subseted . At the time I made the edit, I only thought it was most likely a subseted , so I probably shouldn't have marked it as minor. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Defining this as a "battle" is very contentious as you are probably aware. Any addition, like your edit, whether to the infobox or to the article, that give greater credence to the "battle" will be contentious as well. I oppose subseted infobox as well, but as it's been in the article for a while it is probably something there is a consensus for so I won't remove it. This is not the article to be bold and make important changes without a solid consensus. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The minor discussion says it all. I reverted. Really, Brewcrewer, you are only adding confusion. Nicely put. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose the old subseted Infobox military conflict could be used as a compromise between having it and not having it, but I think it would be better just to have it. Brewcrewer, if I understand you're view correctly, you're saying that that we shouldn't have a full-fledged because that would imply it's a battle, and if it wasn't intentional, it wasn't a battle.


 * I don't see how saying it wasn't a battle if it mistaken identity is different than saying it wasn't an attack if it was mistaken identity (the article calls it an attack). Calling it a battle or attack, or having ,  doesn't imply that it was intentional. We have that infobox on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and you could make a far stronger argument that that wasn't an battle. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * About what I said about Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the point is that something doesn't need to strictly constitute a battle to warrant . Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, by that standard, should we not have this page in Category:Aerial operations and battles because having it there would imply it was a battle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion on it but I have to agree with Emmette Hernandez Coleman. It was more than a couple of shots fired in error, it was a full on fight. Being friendly fire is irrelevant, two friends fighting is still considered a battle if it goes on long enough and in this case you cant dispute that the participants believed that they were in a battle. A change doesn't create a NPOV issue and the difference in the boxes is insignificant. Wayne (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wayne, Do you see any ploblam having a more fleched out infobox like this, as opposed to this and this? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer this one, however, I think a location map with coords instead of the Liberty image which would be of more interest to a casual reader. Although having the flags is a good idea, I don't like having the "belligerent" heading as the US was not involved in the war so was not technically a belligerent. The Liberty image can easily be used elsewhere in the article which woefully short of images. Wayne (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good Idea about the map. Like you said, the image can be used someplace else. Correct me if I'm wrong here, you sound more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am, but about the if the US is a belligerent; wouldn't what would determine that be whether the US was involved in the Liberty incident, not whether the US was involved in the war? After all, this article's about the incident not the war. Or alternatively this infobox doesn't call the US a belligerent.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Infobox documentation says that that the combatant parameter (which shows up on the page as "Belligerents" is for "the parties participating in the conflict", so if there's a problem calling this "Belligerents" in some articles, the infobox itself probably needs to be changed. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed there's a mistake in my earlier post that significantly changes the meaning. "the old subseted Infobox military conflict" was supposed to be "the old subseted non-fleshed-out Infobox military conflict". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I invited WikiProject Military history to participate in this discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Use the military infobox but don't use the beligerant fields - they are optional. Note the nationalities of the two sides involved in the combatant fields intead. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I did but " | combatant1 = 🇮🇱 Israel | combatant2  = 🇺🇸 United States " show up as "belligerents". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have stated you need to use |units1= |units2- instead of the combatant parameters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That shows up as "United Involved". Did you mean to refer to another set of parameters? The infobox documentation says those parameters are for "the units or formations involved". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please supply a reliable source or two that call this a battle? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a quick search, and it seems to be far more common to refer to the Liberty incident as an attack rather then a battle, and so does this article. Battle, attack, whatever you call it, the infobox provides useful information at a glance. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not proposing we change the article to say "battle" instead of "attack". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Dept of the Navy submitted a report on the damage to the Liberty which separated the damage in non battle damage repairs and battle damage repairs. The USS Liberty Enquiry mentions a battle and many official mentions of the damage to the Liberty call it battle damage so there is no lack of RS for battle. However, we are not looking at changing the article title so what the action itself is called is not relevant to the infobox used. If we used the most common description for the title the article would be named Attack on the USS Liberty which outnumbers "USS Liberty incident" by 5/1. The infobox should be one that gives the most information and complies with normal usage. This discussion should not be which infobox to use as the proposed one is clearly appropriate, but it's content. Wayne (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All the concerns about adding the non-subceted fleshed out infobox (other then Wayne "belligerent" concern) were because of the concern that that could imply it was a battle, but RS that it's a battle should make those concerns moot, puss it's not necessary for something to be strictly a battle to use this infobox (used in Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are there still objections to de-subseting, or fleshing out the infobox? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody's stated that they still object, so I'll restore the the non-substed, fleshed out infobox. this still lives the "belligerent" concern, but I'm farly confident that this has been addressed by my point that if calling that field "belligerent" is a problem in some articles, that's its the infobox itself that needs to be fixed. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The info box seems to be used for other friendly fire incidents, e.g. the Tarnak Farm incident (tho not Iran Air Flight 655). However the info box is not used for USS Pueblo (AGER-2), which has a section on the incident where she was captured. The official NSA report says (on p.28) that the Liberty briefly opened fire on the Israeli torpedo boats, which means there was a battle by any standards. The same report has a map of the Liberty's projected track and point of attack on p.30, which we could use.--agr (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Wiki, the attack does not fall within the definition of "friendly fire" or "battle". The incident was an isolated attack on a neutral (i.e., not belligerent) vessel that was officially declared, by both parties, due to mistaken identity.  The slang expression for this type of event is TARFU (see: list of military slang terms).Ken (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the sake of the argument, lets accept that this was not strictly speaking a battle. My point, that it's not necessary for something to strictly constitute a battle to use this infobox, stands, so unless someone disagrees with that all "battle" concerns have been addressed (in the 6 days sense I've asked if anyone still objects to the infobox no one's objected). No one's proposing that the article call this a "battle", so unless it's relevant to the discussion let's put aside the semantics debate over the word "battle". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the box is not a good fit. In respect to each other, Israel and the U.S. were not "belligerents"; i.e., there was no a state of war between Israel and the U.S..Ken (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What if the infobox were to say "combatants" instead of "belligerents"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, there was no state of war between Israel and the U.S.; thus, combatants is not a good fit. The attack involved an attacker and a victim, not mutually warring, combatant or belligerent parties.Ken (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What about "percipients"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Participants is a fairly neutral word, not suggestive of mutually warring parties.Ken (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The ploblem it that when you tell Infobox military conflict who the participants in the conflict were, that shows up as "belligerents", and according to Legoktm it's not possible to override that. If calling this "belligerents" is a problem, it's not just a problem on this article, but on every article where the participants were not in a state of war (e.g. Tarnak Farm incident), and the template itself will need to be changed. I'll raise this on the templates talk page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe discussion on the Military Conflict Infobox talk page well supports that this was an event or incident, not a battle. Thus, an event infobox appears to be a better fit.Ken (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's that discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a battle (or battle-like incident, or combat incident) where parts of two different milataries were shooting at each-other and killing each-other. This infobox works allot better then Infobox news event for milataries shooting and killing each-other, regardless of weather this strictly counts as a a battle. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll reword my original statement. Infobox military conflict work quite nicely for battles, and for battle-like incidents. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating, more or less, what I wrote on the infobox template talk page: While you may find that the infobox works well for battle-like incidents, it's misleading (and technically incorrect) to label the participants as "belligerents" -- the issue that started this discussion. Here's Oxford's definition of belligerent: "a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law." Here's international law definition of belligerent: http://thelawdictionary.org/belligerent/ Bottomline: belligerent has a specific technical/legal meaning that we should strive to use correctly, to use it outside its true meaning is essentially applying one's POV or spin to its meaning -- a WP no no.Ken (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already addressed this. The use of this infobox in not resisted to cases where the percipients are in a state of war with each-other (and I'm not talking about just FF here), it's about military conflicts in general, so if the word "belligerents" is a problem for in these cases, the infobox template itself will need to be fixed. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I don't think this template is restricted to things that would legally qualify as a "conflict" under international law, there's nothing in the template documentation about international law. If Wikipedia used legalese instead of normal English, infant would redirect to Minor (law). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying that the Oxford dictionary is not a reliable source for definition of "normal" English words? After all, it's the Oxford dictionary that defines belligerent as "a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law."  In other words, the noun "belligerent" is widely held and defined as a legal term, as opposed to the adjective "belligerent" which is not.  Even if you throw away the legal aspect of the definition, you're left with "a nation or person engaged in war or conflict."  USS Liberty (USA) was not engaged in war or conflict with her attacker (Israel).  As the story goes, neither party realized the identity of the other until the shooting was over.  So, to indicate that Israel and USA were belligerents (i.e., parties at war or conflict) is simply wrong.Ken (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this will provide some insight: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/belligerent -- see the noun definition...Ken (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll implement something similar to the "(friendly fire)" used in 2001 Sayyd Alma Kalay airstrike target parameter for it's infobox. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put "(considered mistaken identity by both governments)" into the combatant field. Whether this really was mistaken identity is too disputed to simply put in "(mistaken identity)", which is unfortunate because what I put in there wordy for an infobox. On the bright side, this is a wiki, so someone can always come along and replace my words with a nice neutral non-wordy version. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is wiki -- one of the most referenced and dynamic (polite word for unreliable) sources of information on the Internet.Ken (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a wiki is definitely both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the USS Panay incident suffers from the same infobox problem as the USS Liberty incident. When the USS Panay was "mistakenly" attacked in 1937, the USA and Japan were not at war or conflict with each other; i.e., not belligerents.  But the infobox implies that they were.  If this continues, perhaps Wiki will be insturmental in forming a second meaning for the noun belligerent.  The definition might be something like: a nation or person performing a mistaken act of war or conflict.Ken (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * USS Stark incident too. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a change in the infobox. It allows changing the word "Belligerents". See Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict, also for the testcases demo. -DePiep (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the note use small text, which has really mitigated the wordiness problem. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that the info box now says "Battling countries". The article says nothing about the attack being a battle between mutually warring nations; i.e., the USA and Israel were not at war with each other. For this officially declared mistaken attack and self-defense action, the USA and Israel were the involved or participating nations. I'm beginning to believe that the infobox is serving little more than a backdoor means for folks to express their POV on this matter, rather than attempt to present information in a NPOV manner.Ken (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll change it to "Percipients". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Battling countries was DePiep's idea. I thought "Battling countries" was a little better then "Percipients" because in the Liberty incident, parts of the countries militaries were battling with each other, but "Percipients" is fine with me. I don't have any strong feelings over what word we use there. Believe me, the last thing I want is a bunch of "This was intentional, so use the infobox" and "this was an accident, so don't use it". That's part of the reason I don't think this infobox should be limited to intentional military conflicts. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I used Battling countries only in the demo, to illustrate the option. It was not my explicit proposal for USS Liberty situation. As for the Participants: I find that too evasive, it was not a dancing contest. I have changed it into Combatants. Now the only problem with the word Belligerents is out of the way. Apart from the formal war status, no other problem was mentioned with beligerents. -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What's evasive? It seems that your POV is that the attack was somehow a USA v/s Israel contest -- as if the two countries were in a state of conflict or war.  This was not the case.  The official view is that the attack was due to mistaken identity, and that any "battle" action taken by USS Liberty's crew was purely for self-defense against an unknown attacker, as opposed to attempting to defeat Israel or any component of her armed forces.  The word "combatants" seems less problematic than "belligerents", but it too implies that the attack was part of an overt USA v/s Israel contest.  The online Oxford dictionary defines the noun combatant as follows: 1) "a person or nation engaged in fighting during a war" or 2) "a person engaged in conflict or competition with another."  I believe we've established that USA and Israel were not at war with each other; thus, the first definition is not a good fit.  The second definition does not apply because it says nothing about nations, only persons in conflict or competition.  As stated previously, using a word like "participants" provides a totally neutral POV regarding the status of the two nations involved in the attack.Ken (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Evasive is omitting the fight or combat (the violence) in the header here. Participants omits that meaning. Then, formally US and Israel were not at war, which is solely why the word Belligerent is not applicable (that is what you repeatedly have noted). Combatants does not have that problem wrt formality, so it can be used. Al together, we call it a spade. I do not get your statement that US and Israel in this combat were not engaged. What do you mean? -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Combatants gives the implication that there was real fighting between two countries going on, not a tragic accident. "Participants" is a much broader, less specific, and neutral description. -- Jethro   B  22:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Same question to you: why do you suggest there was no fighting? -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of whether there was fighting, it's a question of the intentions and hostility, and how misleading the terminology is. It was an incident, and it involved participants. -- Jethro   B  00:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing the concept of nations' military elements being involved in a fight v/s the nations themselves being in conflict. The nations (USA and Israel) were not in conflict with each other -- they were not mutual belligerents or combatants.  Instead, USA was a neutral nation relative to Israel.  The fight, officially declared due to mistake, was between the people attacking Liberty and Liberty's crew, not the nations per se.Ken (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)+
 * Ken, these two countries were in the battle. Full stop. "Mistake" or any other background is not relevant at this point. And first you object to belligerents because of "not at war", now you throw all words on the heap. US and Israel were there in a battle. They were combatants. -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * re Jethro B: It was a fight, so we use the word that describes the fight. If you say whether or not is was a fight doesn't matter, than you easily can affirm we use the violence word (since you state it doesn't matter to you, there is no reason to oppose it). Then, what you point to (intentions, misleading) is not what this box section is about. The cause and perception of the battle is to be addressed elsewhere. Not in this box section where only are listed the combatants of the battle. -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The nationality of the people involved in this "fight" were American and Israeli, but the nations of America and Israel were not at war with each other, nor did they declare war on each other as a result of the incident; i.e., they were not belligerents or combatants as defined by the Oxford English dictionary. Thus, one is semantically limited to saying that the nations of America and Israel were the principle participants in the incident.  If it ever comes to light that the Israelis knew full well they were attacking USS Liberty (i.e., performing an act of war), then belligerents or combatants would better describe the status of the two nations.  Meanwhile, participants seems to best describe the status of the two nations.Ken (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DePiep, they weren't engaged in a combat operation and hostility between the two countries. As Ken noted, this was one incident attributed to mistaken identity by both governments, and which by no means was a combat between the nations themselves.  "Participants" is the most neutral terminology possible. -- Jethro   B  23:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a battle with violence, they were combatants. No reason to obfuscate that. This is an encyclopedia. What is your source for saying it was not a battle? -DePiep (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oxford dictionary says the noun battle is "a sustained fight between large organized armed forces" or "a lengthy and difficult conflict or struggle". I don't believe it's reasonable to consider USS Liberty as being a large armed force (unless you believe a ship with four 0.50 caliber machine guns is a large armed force), but it may be reasonable to consider the attacking forces as being relatively large -- at least in regard to firepower.  Due to the overwhelming firepower of the attacking forces, the attack was violent -- as you say.  But, by definition (Oxford dictionary), the nations of America and Israel were not "combatants" or "belligerents" -- as previously discussed.  I don't believe anybody is trying to obfuscate the violent nature of the attack, but proper word usage is important -- especially in an encyclopedia.Ken (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

How about "Nations involved" as a compromise? It's clear and NPOV without minimizing the violence of the incident.--agr (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly much better, but still problematic. Again, it wasn't a fight between two nations, both governments have said it was an incident resulting from mistaken identity. Incidents have participants. The nations themselves didn't decide on this intentionally. -- Jethro   B  23:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What word we use instead of "Belligerents" will probably set the precedent for other similar articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Both countries were certainly involved in the incident even if neither chose to be. I think "involved" has less of an active connotation that "participant," e.g. "Thirty percent of your grade depends on class participation" or "Jones was involved in the riots even though he did not participate in the protest." With regard to a possible precedent, consider Iran Air flight 655, where a U.S. cruiser shot down an Iranian passenger jet thinking it was an F-14. There had been an earlier disputed incident between the cruiser and Iranian patrol boats. Was Iran a participant? a belligerent? Of course "Nations involved" would not do for situations involving non-state actors.--agr (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Iran Air flight 655 uses Infobox Airliner accident which doesn't have a combatants field, so I don't think there's a precedent there. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but arguably it should use Infobox military conflict. It was a combat action and many more lives were lost. And unlike here, the US and Iran were in a hostile posture before the shoot down. Should Liberty be regarded as a mere "maritime accident "? --agr (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The question isn't really how we classify it, it's what infobox is the best fit. If we use a military infobox, Infobox operational plan would probably be better then Infobox military conflict, but Infobox aircraft occurrence (which "Infobox Airliner accident" redirects to) seems like the best fit. Infobox Airliner occurrence works quite well for Airliners crashing, and the military infoboxes don't have the proper fields for describing Airliners crashing, such as Aircraft Type, Origin, Last stopover, Destination, Operator, Tail Number, Passengers, and Crew. I noticed that Infobox Airliner occurrence doesn't have a perpetrator field which is a weakness. USS Liberty wasen't a cruse-liner that sunk, it was a navel vessel that that was shooting at and being shot at by other navel vessels, and Infobox military conflict works very well for navel vessels shooting each-other. If you think Iran Air Flight 655 should use another infobox, you should discuss that on it's talk page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox aircraft occurrence may well be the best fit for Iran Air 655 (tho "occurrence" is a awkward word choice) but it badly needs a perpetrator field. We have whole categories of aircraft bombings and aircraft shoot downs that use this info box.  I think the overall point is that no one-size-fits-all solution exists.  Info boxes should provide factual summaries without prejudicing disputes, and captions aren't sourced, so we should bend over backwards to use neutral terms.--agr (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I raised that at Template_talk:Infobox_aircraft_occurrence. We're getting way off topic hare so unless this is relevant to what we do with the Liberty incident infobox, let's take this discussion there and/or Talk:Iran Air Flight 655. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rereading Ken's argumentation, I can predict a shift after ecery next solution. First it was "the states were not belligerents", now it is like "the states were not involved". -DePiep (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And if consensus is that it was actually a gift of love, then that is what consensus will be... If you have objections, state them. But if consensus is formed, that's the consensus. As of now, we've been discussing a variety of possibilities and will hopefully reach consensus on one of them.  We've been rejecting some, looking at others, going off to other infoboxes... Very interesting, I must say. -- Jethro   B  19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is part of the process, but paramount is presenting information based on reliable sources while avoiding statements of personal POV. In this case, Oxford English dictionary is serving as a reliable source.Ken (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A recent infobox edit by Depiep was reverted. It involved removal of a statement in the nations part of the infobox saying that both countries declared the attack due to mistake. Considering that the nations heading is now "Participants" in place of "Belligerents", I see no need to place a note about the attack being declared a mistake; i.e., I agree with Depiep's edit. In effect, the note serves to place emphasis on this aspect of the attack, and overall appears awkward in its presentation.Ken (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sonntagsbraten who reverted, the fact that it says participants doesn't in any way demonstrate that it was a case of mistaken identity. Even in a battle you have participants. The wording participants is obviously different from combatants, and is thus preferred as seen above, but still can't exemplify mistaken identity. -- Jethro   B  00:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel it is necessary or important to make the statement within the infobox? The article itself covers this aspect of the attack very well.  The original motivation for shoehorning the statement into the infobox was to somehow explain that the nations were not truly belligerents, as the header once stated.  Now that the "belligerents" issue has been more-or-less resolved, the need no longer exists.Ken (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the two are connected. The fact that it said belligerents was a point of contention because they weren't really at war; the fact that it was mistaken identity is still an important aspect, and the infobox should summarize all the important facts of the article.  When you're saying who participated in it, it should be explained that it was mistaken identity participation.  -- Jethro   B  01:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's important for the infobox to contain a statement to the effect that the attack was officially found due to mistaken identity, then I suggest using the "notes" field for this type of ancillary information instead of shoehorning into the "combatant" field.Ken (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by a "notes" section. Right now, I agree it looks awk where it is, not because it's in "participants," but becasue it's next to America. Why America, not Israel? If it was the other way around, why Israel, not America? If we are to include it, it should be next to "participants" itself, which I think would make more sense. -- Jethro   B  04:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I put it next to America because it was America, not Israel that was attacked. I based this on the note at 2001 Sayyd Alma Kalay airstrike and that note is in the part of the infobox that says who is being attacked, not the part that says who's attacking. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Makes sense now. -- Jethro  B  05:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox has various fields, one of the fields is entitled "notes". The stated purpose for the notes field indicates that its a good fit for this situation: "notes -- optional field for further notes; this should only be used in exceptional circumstances."  It seems to me that saying, "Both nations officially attributed the attack by Israel as being due to mistaken identification.", is stating an exceptional (i.e., not the norm) circumstance for an attack.  Additionally, a more detailed note makes clear who was the attacker and who was the victim -- something the current shoehorned notation does not, as expressed above.Ken (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, but I'm not that familiar with notes. I get the idea, but can you show me an infobox that has such a note, so I can see what it'd actually look like? Thanks. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  23:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just performed an edit of the article's infobox to implement the notes field.Ken (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. I don't see why it should differ from articles like 2001 Sayyd Alma Kalay airstrike, where it just has it next to the entity being attacked, and not a note. Seems to stand out more and clarify it better that way.  Struck out part is fixed due to asterisk being placed --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2001 Sayyd Alma Kalay airstrike uses an "Infobox military attack" template that has limited fields compaired to the "Infobox_military_conflict." Are you suggesting that we use the military attack template?  If so, it leaves little other choice than to present information the way it's presented in the example article.Ken (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaaargh got it! This situation is so sticky, no? If we want one thing, it's not possible because of structure on infobox. If we want to change structure, it creates another issue. So much stuff... --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro   B  01:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: the never ending game... ;)Ken (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant point Ken. And you like it don't you? -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found that the only sane way to approach this article is as a form of entertainment.Ken (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever floats your boat. I like to view Wikipedia as a sexual engagement that can derive great pleasure from. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Jethro  B  00:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that we seem to be finished playing with the infobox, perhaps we all can turn our attention to editing and improving the article's content.Ken (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC) To me, this does not read like consensus. (a) "participants" does not note the fighting, and (b) a cause of "mistake" is irrelevant to the actual fight. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * DePiep, 34 dead, 171 wounded and a severely damaged ship denotes "fighting" by at least one of the participants. I find it difficult to believe that anybody viewing the info box would not realize that a "fight" was involved.Ken (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)