Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 5

Primary Sources vs.Secondary Sources.

In what way do the notes to the sentence 'English transcripts of the tapes—recorded by U.S. warplanes—indicate that Israel still believed it had hit an Egyptian supply ship even after the attack had stopped. [9] [10]' (n.9,10) function, as primary (not acceptable) sources to document the wording 'Israel' as the subject of that sentence? This appears to be a gross violation of WP:OR. The transcripts say nothing of 'Israel' qua 'the Israeli government' at the time.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

It could mean that two nearly uninvolved editors have seen the claim that sources are being misused, have checked other parts of the article for themselves, and decided that there are indeed problems. I still cannot explain why "many" has been transcribed as "some", particularly not when this is quite against the sense of the Chicago Tribune article. PR^talk 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Narson is asking for secondary sources elsewhere on this page. Be coherent. The above instance, which I have cited, is a violation of WP:OR. The sentence adduces improperly primary sources, and interprets them incorrectly. Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to see a new topic was formed and titled to clarify what was beginning to appear like an off-topic discussion.

As to the matter of an interpretation of information being correct or not. Take into consideration that an interpertation can be influenced by one's POV. Thus, it can reflect a POV. To state an opinion that a possibly POV oriented result (interpertation) is either correct or incorrect is a POV in itself. So, who's to say that your interpertation or POV is correct?

On to specific points.

I believe the word "some" cannotes a minority or limited number. The word "many" cannotes a majority or large number. Thus, indeed, using "some" when "many" is the true case is improper.

The idea that secordary scources are better or more accurate than primary sources has always purplexed me. For example, which of the following reports would you more likely believe as accurately reflecting a person's thoughts:

- Statements about observing an apple falling in a report by a woman who saw an apple fall; or

- statements about observing an apple falling in a report by a man who based his statements on those found the woman's report?

For me, if it can be verified that the man accurately reported the woman's observations and did not interject his POV, then I have no objection in using his secondary report; otherwise, it seems less error prone or open to question to simply cite or quote woman's original report.

Regarding the specific issue of whether or not the SIGINT transcripts reflect Government of Israel (GOI) knowledge about the ship's identity. Of course, this is silly thinking. It was not the GOI, but a few people within the GOI's military forces (who's voices were recorded) that reflect uncertainity about the ship's identity -- nothing more, nothing less.Ken (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On this last point then, you agree that the sentence ascribing to Israel what is a series of exchanges in a selective set of transacripts between military operatives is improper. (b)There is no shadow of doubt that wikipedia procedures strongly privilege secondary sources, and express wariness of using primary sources. If no secondary sources exist, then primary sources, if they are official government documents can be used, esp. in citations, since they otherwise lend themselves to problems of WP:SYN (c) The two notes constitute a violation of WP:OR, since they merely give photocopy transcripts of statements by pilots, and not interceptions of deliberations (Israel) by the Israeli government of the day. It is simple as that. (d) As to apples, in law, eyewitness accounts are one thing, judge and jury assessments of the validity of those reports another. The former is not decisive, the latter constitutes the verdict.Technically, the passage must go. Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In general, it seems that some people like to ascribe the mindset of whole nations and/or governments based on the actions of a few of their employees -- members of Israel's military being employees of the GOI in this case.

As to apples, the issue is not the validity of eyewitness truthfulness, but the ability of a secondary reporter to correctly report or interpret a primary source's report -- regardless of the primary reporter being judged as true or not.

I understand Wiki's preference for secordary sources -- one can't have the masses thinking for themselves, citing primary sources, and turning Wiki into a newsgroup. But I see no reason to completely dismiss primary sources as not being acceptable references. As I stated, hearing/reading the story of an apple falling from a person who witnessed it is always preferable to hearing/reading it from a secondary source.

I don't believe your court of law analogy is accurate. A secondary source is not a judge or jury, he/she is more like a hearsay or expert witness; i.e., not one who passes final judgment, but simply states an opinion or POV on the matter.Ken (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Nishidani is saying that primary sources are verbotten, merely that their use is deprecated compared to secondary sources (Nishidani can correct me if this isn't the case). The problem with primary sources that I think Nish is trying to get over (And again, he can correct me on this) is that they have limited use for what you can say. We can only report literally what the primary source says, where as a secondary source is likely to have evaluation, synthesis and other such that we can draw upon. The limit of what we can do with sources really is evaluate any bias/reliability issues so the more a source says the more useful it is. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Narson has construed my meaning. I have had this trouble on othe pages, where an extremely competent rigourist on the primary/secondary source distinction and I clashed. I personally think official government documents can be quoted, particularly when there is no or no adequate secondary source available that summarizes them (the ideal), and if they are highly reliable (government or institutional documents (UN reports etc.)). This has been allowed on the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni page for a key piece of evidence (the mufti holding a copy of the Protocols of Zion) etc., where no secondary source reports the fact, for example. I think the distinction, and the preference for secondary sources, must be understood practically, as in place to avoid editorial usurpations of what is the function of informed specialist interpretation, i.e. to stop editors in wiki making their own judgements. With official documents in the public domain, readily accessible, some lenience should be showed, but only faute de mieux, and as a provisory measure until the secondary literature, by specialists and academics reviewing this material is forthcoming.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no fundamental disagreement with your statements about primary v/s secondary sources, but I don't believe any secondary source's opinion or fact-finding should ever be considered the "final word" or "correct interpretation" on a given matter.

There is no such thing as a perfect secondary source; i.e., one who has perfect knowledge or interpretation. The best that can be achieved is quoting or citing a secondary source's opinion or fact-finding purely for informational purposes -- nothing more, nothing less. And, of course, when there is no secondary source or agreement among secondary sources, then use a primary source for informational purposes only; i.e., not to support a POV or "original research."

Of course, if a bit of information from a source (primary or secondary) happens to agree with ones POV, then others with a different POV might suspect it's being presented as a clever way to promote ones POV. I see no way to avoid this problem. Thus, the need to discuss matters of this nature, in an effort to develop consensus about the constitution of a NPOV presentation.Ken (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have policy to guide us on the use of sources. When this article is edited to policy (eg including the highly relevant Moorer "investigation") we'll end up with something much more creditable to the project. PR^talk 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I will let those more conversant in Wiki's primary/secondary source policy take the lead in that. I argee with PR that the inclusion of the "Moorer Report" will lead to the project's betterment, especially since the the headings have been changed to 'government' investigations. It might be titled Subsequent or Recent reports, or maybe 'reviews.' In any case, serious questions by reliable sources, concerning the credibility of these prior official investigations, hang over the incident after 40 years. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Moorer Report" may indeed have its place in the article, but it should not be presented as any sort of official investigation. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

SO then are you saying that if I create a section called perhaps "UNOFFICIAL INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS" and include the Moorer Commission reeport there you won't simply delete the entry? Henrywinklestein (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is absurd, really really absurd that information that indicates the attack was deliberate is censored. The recent comments by Adm. Mike Mullen to his contacts in Israel, regarding a concern of another USS Liberty incident gives one pause. The reader would have to make their own judgement whether a US Navy Admiral would express such concerns if the original incident were an honest mistake. Assuming of course, that the reader were to use Wikipedia for research. And leaving out such material undermines that cause. 15thSt (talk) 19:51, 07 November 2008 (UTC)

The attack was deliberate -- investigations by the USG and GOI agree on this point. The point in contention is whether or not the attackers knew the target they deliberately attacked was a US Navy ship before they attacked. I assume you meant the latter point when you stated: "...information that indicates the attack was deliberate is censored...".

There are three sections in the article that provide ample coverage of the possibility that the attack was performed with certain knowledge of the ship's identity: "Ongoing controversy and unresolved questions", "NSA tapes and recent developments" and "Details in dispute". So, your claim that "...information that indicates the attack was deliberate is censored..." is not well-founded.

The issue-at-hand is about usage, presentation, placement and citation for inclusion of information about the Moorer Commission and its findings, in accordance with wiki rules, not censorship per se.Ken (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment Ken. That the media try to ignore the Moorer Commission is a problem and you could say covert censorship which is why it has trouble with Wiki rules. That it should be in the article is a given based solely on the credentials of the authors of the report if nothing else. The article should be a comprehensive account of information that is available. I think the controversy is handled well here but the article fails a bit when discussing investigations. Reports are written about as if they are evidence based which is misleading and it has always been difficult to add material that doesn't support the official account no matter how well sourced. I don't care who is to blame for what, politics should be left at the door. Wayne (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, we have all, at one time or annother, had what we know to be right stifled or made difficult by wiki rules. There is an addage you will here on here, which is about the policy 'Verifiability over truth'. Wikipedia, by necessity, has to favour what can be verified over what indeed might be true. Wikipedia is a poor place to right wrongs, for that you need The Academy for the most part. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding citation flags considered disruptive by one...

I just attempted to add "citation missing" (i.e., "fact") tags to many statements, in two of the article's follow-up sections, that clearly lack cited sources for many of the claims and statements within. But, alas, my changes for one section were almost immediately reverted by User:Justin A Kuntz and labeled as "disruptive use of 'fact' tag".

In accordance with wiki rules, I was "bold" in applying these tags. My only error was forgetting to log-in when applying the flags; otherwise, the flags were applied in good faith and, I believe, correctly.

Thus, I'd like somebody to explain to me why adding "fact" tags to statements that are clearly uncited is considered "disruptive usage". Granted, many tags were applied, but many statements were, and remain, truly without cited sources or only a vague generalization of a source; e.g., "Critics claim...".Ken (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest using section tags, Ken. They say that the section contains unreferenced stuff etc. With that many citation tags, it starts to look a little crazy. Though, I should say, I wasn't the one that reverted so can't speak as to their concerns. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that was me, to be honest the fact that it was an IP editor doing it probably heightened my suspicions but literally peppering the article with {{fact}} tags is disruptive and doesn't help to improve the article. We don't have to provide a reference for literally every fact in an article which is what was done. It was not a case of being bold in my opinion, more a case of disrupting the article to make a point see WP:POINT. So no it wasn't with Wiki rules, though I will assume for now it was done in good faith out of a desire to see the article improved. I will close by commenting that having been reverted once the correct procedure was to have taken the issue to the talk page not to repeat the exercise (unless of course the revert was merely vandalism) and pointing the finger at other editors who acted in good faith in an accusatory tone doesn't help. Justin talk 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin, you say that not all statements of facts need to be cited. I agree for commonly understood matters and statements like 1+1=2; but otherwise, how can one determine or know that a factual appearing statement or quote is indeed factual (i.e., stated in or by a reliable source), as opposed to an opinion, misinterpretation or out-of-context quote by a contributor, if there is no citation for validation?

I understand that lots of citation flags appear disruptive (I took no delight in applying them), but how else does one mark or tag statements in need of a citation? Narson's suggestion is helpful, but it provides no clues about the specific statements in need of citations. Besides, the article already has a header stating that citations are needed. Okay, exactly which statements need them?

Justin, you lost me with your comment about "repeat the exercise". I added the {{fact}} tag to two sections. After adding them, I discovered one section was reverted, by you. It was then that I posted this section to the discussion page. There was no malicious "repeat the exercise" after your revert.

As to your comments about "pointing fingers" and "tone"; methinks you read too much between the lines...Ken (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well firstly if a source is used for a series of statements within a single paragraph, a single reference is more than sufficient. You tagged every sentence in some paragraphs. That was disruptive and completely unnecessary, so my comment stands. My repeat the exercise comment stems from the fact that it was done twice, I'd already reverted the previous addition of {{fact}} tags earlier in the day. So the exercise was in fact repeated, check the edit history. So again my comment stands. And methinks thou dost protest too much, if it is simply a misunderstanding sarcasm is hardly the medium to go forward on. Justin talk 09:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I you check history you will find that User:PalestineRemembered replaced the fact tags you reverted....not Ken. Wayne (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[1],[2] I believe the history begs to differ, though I acknowledge that User:PalestineRemembered also did the same [3]. Ken has acknowledged the IP edits as his. Justin talk 15:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin, IP address 75.34.34.152 (my IP address for the edits) performed two edits, on two different sections, and no reverts. The history log confirms this.Ken (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That IP address was used to add {{fact}} tags in a disruptive manner following my first revert and it was immediately afterward in the edit history. Do you want to argue semantics over whether it was a revert or not, or address the issue that disrupting the article to make a WP:POINT was unhelpful? Justin talk 16:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tags are indeed unsightly - but the solution is to provide the references, not delete them!

I can find 60 tags, only a few of which may be unnecessary:

1. At least some of those flybys were from a close range.
2. At 6:03 a.m. Sinai time (GMT +2) that morning, the Nord identified the ship as a U.S. supply ship. After the Nord landed and its naval observer was debriefed, the ship was further identified the USS Liberty based its "GTR-5" markings.
3. Many Liberty crewmen gave testimony that one of the aircraft flew so close to Liberty that its propellers rattled the deck plating of the ship, and the pilots waved to the crew of Liberty, and the crewmen waved back.
4. The ship was marked as a neutral vessel on Israel's Central Coastal Command plot board, but at 11 am the ship was removed from the plot because information on its position was stale.
5. At this time, the ship was slowly heading westward, in international waters, along the northern coast of the Sinai Peninsula. This course took the Liberty approximately 45 kilometers from its last sighting by IAF pilots by 2 p.m.
6. 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.
7. After a series of strafing passes by aircraft, one Israeli pilot, Rabin, who wondered why the Liberty had not returned fire, made a close pass and noted that the ship had Western, not Arabic, lettering.
8. The Israeli torpedo boats attacked with cannon fire and launched five torpedoes at Liberty (p.17). One hit Liberty on the starboard side forward of the superstructure, creating a 39 X 24-foot (7.3 m) hole in what had been a former cargo hold converted to the ships research spaces and killing 25 servicemen.
9. The inquiry's terms of reference were limited to whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty's crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack.
10. The Liberty was capable of intercepting Israeli communications and transmitting information to America's British allies.
11. In 2002 Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, U.S. Navy, ended his own silence on the work of the court of inquiry ... wrote ... I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as 'murderous bastards.' It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident.}}
12. In particular, A. Jay Cristol, who also served as an officer of the Judge Advocate General in the U.S. military, suggests that Boston was responsible in part for the original conclusions of the Court of Inquiry, and that by later declaring that they were false he has admitted to "lying under oath."
13. Critics also note that Boston's claims about pressure on Kidd were hearsay, and that Kidd was not alive to confirm or deny them.
14. They also note that Boston did not maintain prior to his affadavit and comments related to it that Kidd spoke of such instructions to him or to others.
15. Supporters of the intentional-attack theory believe that Boston's statement invalidates the conclusions of the Court, and that Boston would not have made such an accusation if he did not know it to be true.
16. The previous day, Israel's warplanes had erroneously attacked an Israeli armored column, demonstrating unintentional mistakes, where the IAF had even attacked Israel's own forces.
17. The incident took place during the Six Day War when Israel was engaged in battles with three Arab countries, creating an environment where mistakes and confusion were prevalent.
18. For example, at 11:45, a few hours before the attack, there was a large explosion on the shores of El-Arish followed by black smoke, probably caused by the destruction of an ammunition dump by retreating Egyptian forces.
19. The Israeli army thought the area was being bombarded, and that an unidentified ship offshore was responsible.
20. (According to U.S. sources, Liberty was 14 nautical miles (26 km) from those shores at the time of the attack.)
21. Had Israel intended to attack the USS Liberty, IAF aircraft would have been sent out with iron bombs, not 30 mm rapid-firing cannons and napalm bombs, sinking the Liberty within the first few minutes of the incident.
22. The attacking aircraft used napalm bombs and rapid-firing 30 mm cannons, and napalm is an ineffective armament for doing real damage to a steel-hulled ship — other than starting fires in combustibles.
23. Liberty opened fire first on the gunboats. This, though, was after the aerial attacks.
24. No adequate benefit has been put forward that the Israelis would derive from the attack on an American ship, especially considering the high cost of the predictable complications that must inevitably follow such an attack on a powerful ally, and the fact that Israel immediately notified the American embassy after the attack.
25. Ennes and Joe Meadors, another survivor of the attack, run a website that was built "with support and encouragement from the USS Liberty Veterans Association."
26. Meadors states that the classification of the attack as deliberate is the official policy of the association, to which all known survivors belong.
27. Other survivors run several additional websites.
28. .... the USS Liberty had no Hebrew translators on board, but was manned to monitor Arabic and Soviet radio traffic, although Israel may not have known this.
29. Critics claim many of the books and documentaries include incorrect assumptions.
30. ... the IDF Intelligence chief had told a White House aide then in Israel that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow," ... which, the critics argue, indicate that Israel was not trying to conceal the planned invasion of Syria from the U.S.
31. From the early 1950s up to shortly before the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel's primary military ally was France.
32. The United States, with a few exceptions, consistently refused requests for sales of offensive weapons to Israel until 1968.
33. The height of French-Israeli cooperation was in the 1956 Suez war, when France, Israel and the United Kingdom ... against Egypt, despite stringent opposition from the United States and threats from the Soviet Union.
34. Many of the events surrounding the attack are the subject of controversy: US crewmen's perceptions of Israeli intent: ... Israel responds that its attack was directed at its Egyptian enemies, and not at the United States, its most important ally.
35. Distinctiveness of USS Liberty's appearance: One major dispute is whether the Liberty would have been immediately recognized as a different ship from the Egyptian ship El Quseir.
36. Critics of the Israeli attack argue that the Liberty was distinctive, and "bristling with antennae."
37. Admiral Tom Moorer stated that the Liberty was the most identifiable ship in the US Navy.
38. Israel says the identification as the El Quseir was made by the torpedo boats while the Liberty was enveloped in smoke and was based on a guide to Arab fleets that did not include U.S. vessels.
39. Those who believe the attack was intended against a different ship point out that the Liberty was a mass-produced Victory Ship of standardized design, built as a cargo ship—the Egyptian ship El Quseir was a cargo vessel.
40. ... survivors uniformly agree that the Liberty was flying the Stars and Stripes before, during and after the attack ... replaced with another, larger flag that measured 13 feet (4.0 m) long.
41. NSA documents declassified on June 8 2007 state "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."
42. Israel says the aircraft involved were diverted from ground support roles.
43. It remains unknown why Israel would begin to attack a US ship but then leave the Liberty afloat with witnesses aboard.
44. Israeli aircraft markings: Some American survivors of the attack assert that the Israeli aircraft were unmarked. However, aircraft markings are not required by the laws of war and two of the attacking aircraft were highly distinctive Dassault Mirage III aircraft, flown only by Israel in that region.
45. Jamming: Both Liberty and USS Saratoga radio operators reported hearing the distinctive buzzing sound usually indicative of radio frequency jamming.
46. ... changing frequency is a standard technique to avoid radio jamming and jamming equipment is often designed to find the actual frequencies in use.
47. Probability of identification: Americans claim the thirteen closer flybys of the previous two days should have been sufficient for identification.
48. ... Later that morning, when explosions were heard in El-Arish, Israel claims to have reacquired the ship without being aware that it was the same one that was flown over earlier in the day.
49. Effort for identification: The American crew claims the attacking aircraft did not make identification runs over Liberty, but rather began to strafe immediately. Israel claims several identification passes were made.
50. Speed of the vessel: According to Israeli accounts, the torpedo boat made (admittedly erroneous) measurements that indicated the ship was steaming at 30 knots (56 km/h.
51. Israeli naval doctrine at the time required that a ship traveling at that speed must be presumed to be a warship.
52. A second boat calculated Liberty's speed to be 28 knots (52 km/h) The maximum sustained speed of Liberty was only 17.5 knots (32 km/h), 21 knots (39 km/h) being attainable by overriding the engine governors.
53. Visual communications: Joe Meadors, the signalman on bridge, states that "Immediately prior to the torpedo attack, he was on the Signal Bridge repeatedly sending 'USS Liberty U.S. Navy Ship' by flashing light to the torpedo boats."
54. The Israeli boats claim to have read only the signal "AA", which was exactly the signal dispatched by the Egyptian destroyer Ibrahim Al-Awal when it was engaged by the Israeli Navy eleven years earlier.
55. Meadors claims he never sent "AA" (which would require him to identify himself as well); this disagreement may be settled by considering the fact that Liberty was unable to read signals sent from the boats due to smoke.
56. Israeli ships' actions after the torpedo hit: Some of the crewmembers claim that after the Liberty had been torpedoed, Israeli boats circled the ship firing 0.50 caliber machine guns at descended (unmanned) life rafts and sailors on board the ship.
57. Israelis claim they recognized the ship as American immediately after it was hit and ceased fire.
58. Israeli offers of help: Reports differ regarding whether the Israeli boats offered help. Some crew members claim the torpedo boats simply withdrew, while the captain and the Israeli crew report that help was offered;
59. Ennes acknowledges the Israelis offered help but claims they only did so at 4:30,
60. the same time cited in the Israel Defense Force's History Report about the attack. PR^talk 18:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Can you hide that behind a collapsible section PR? Or just point us to click on the article button on the top left? 13,000kb of text is a heck of a lot. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Task-lists need to be on open show (though I could start a new section). Please feel free to tick off each one as you do it. PR^talk 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Argue semantics? Justin, the logs make clear my exact actions. I performed edits on two different sections. I posted the first edit at 17:38 11-NOV-08 and the second edit at 18:33 11-NOV-08. Later, upon reviewing both edits, I noticed that the first edit was reverted, by you at 17:48 11-NOV-08, and that I had forgotten to log-in. Not understanding the basis of your revert's brief comment, I formed this new discussion section at 20:02 11-NOV-08 -- hoping that you would drop-by to discuss the matter.

As one can see above, at no time did I revert Justin's revert or perform some type of pseudo-revert in an attempt to make a point. If I had noticed Justin's revert before posting my second edit, I would have refrained from posting it, and then formed this discussion section. But, unfortunately, this was not the case.

Anyway, on to the technical issue at hand, I now understand the basis for Justin stating that that my recent {{fact}} edits are viewed as a "disruptive editing" style, and that a preferred method is to place a single {{fact}} tag at the end of paragraphs containing many uncited statements of non-obvious, factual-oriented content. Thus, I'll proceed accordingly.Ken (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ken, while I have no doubt that your intention was good, adding huge numbers of fact tags is usually viewed as disruptive. When an entire section suffers from multiple referencing issues, the preferred approach is to include at the beginning of a section a template indicating the problem, typically a {{SectOR}} or a {{Unreferencedsection}}. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, Understood. I was simply applying a technique that I use for my own editing work. If I don't tag or flag specific statements that need attention, I find that I don't give them due attention. Clearly, this approach is not considered a good practice in Wikiland. When in Wikiland, do as the Wikilanders do...Ken (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've come across this problem with multiple fact tags before in other articles. Rather than jumping on the WP policy bandwagon I've found it FAR LESS disruptive to just go through them one at a time on the article page either explaining in the summary why a tag is not neccessary (usually because a ref at the end of paragraph or section covers it) or finding a ref myself and adding it (even if I don't agree with the claim!). If any of you had bothered checking Ken's edit history and as a result treated the tags in good faith then this dispute would not have occured and you would have saved everyone a lot of time and energy arguing. Treat this in a NPOV whether you agree with it or not and don't lose sight that WP policy is a guideline and not set in stone. Wayne (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, have you read through the section above? Ken added the tags as an IP, so it would not have been possible to "bother[] checking Ken's edit history", since it was not immediately apparent that it was Ken who made the edits. Also, who are you referring to when you say "any of you", and what on earth is the advice "Treat this in a NPOV whether you agree with it or not and don't lose sight that WP policy is a guideline and not set in stone" relevant to? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake as I overlooked that the edits were done by IP. That doesn't however change my point. The "advice" means what it says. Not liking an edit doesn't warrant invoking WP rules for everything. Text wasn't changed. No claims were made. They were tags and easily addressed without reverting and claims of bad faith. Wayne (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you had no concept of what actually happened, your "advice" was just talk page posturing. Who were you referring to when you said "any of you"? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I consider the matter resolved. Some feathers were ruffled and lessons learned -- no real harm done. Let's all move on to more constructive matters; e.g., finding sources and adding citations to the article.Ken (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Outdent -> The disruption I'm seeing is people removing 60 citation tags and claiming that that improves the article. I cannot guarantee that every one of these tags is called for, but all the first few I've checked seem to be:

1. Critics also note that Boston's claims about pressure on Kidd were hearsay, and that Kidd was not alive to confirm or deny them. - which critics say this? (and the 3 other uncited claims in this one paragraph).
2. The previous day, Israel's warplanes had erroneously attacked an Israeli armored column, demonstrating unintentional mistakes, where the IAF had even attacked Israel's own forces. - there is nothing in article for Israel having carried out "friendly fire" attacks.
3. The incident took place during the Six Day War when Israel was engaged in battles with three Arab countries, creating an environment where mistakes and confusion were prevalent. - needs citing or re-writing.
4. For example, at 11:45, a few hours before the attack, there was a large explosion on the shores of El-Arish followed by black smoke, probably caused by the destruction of an ammunition dump by retreating Egyptian forces. - nothing in article for this.
5. The Israeli army thought the area was being bombarded, and that an unidentified ship offshore was responsible. - who said this?
6. According to U.S. sources, Liberty was 14 nautical miles (26 km) from those shores at the time of the attack.) - we seem to be admitting we don't actually care who said this!
7. Had Israel intended to attack the USS Liberty, IAF aircraft would have been sent out with iron bombs, not 30 mm rapid-firing cannons and napalm bombs, sinking the Liberty within the first few minutes of the incident. - it may be true - but it looks like clumsy Original Research.
8. The attacking aircraft used napalm bombs and rapid-firing 30 mm cannons, and napalm is an ineffective armament for doing real damage to a steel-hulled ship — other than starting fires in combustibles. - bad English or OR?
9. Liberty opened fire first on the gunboats. This, though, was after the aerial attacks. - who said this?
10. No adequate benefit has been put forward that the Israelis would derive from the attack on an American ship, especially considering the high cost of the predictable complications that must inevitably follow such an attack on a powerful ally, and the fact that Israel immediately notified the American embassy after the attack. - maybe, maybe not - who said this?
11. Ennes and Joe Meadors, another survivor of the attack, run a website that was built "with support and encouragement from the USS Liberty Veterans Association." - if this is stated on their web-site, then lets have an in-line confirmation of this.
12. Meadors states that the classification of the attack as deliberate is the official policy of the association, to which all known survivors belong. - lets check this.
13. Other survivors run several additional websites. - need numbers of and links for this!

And so on and so forth - I'm not getting the impression that anyone cares about this article - making the other concern even more pressing, this article may be an attempt to hijack the project with a piece of propaganda. Cristol is most certainly not the last word on this business - in fact, judging by what else I'm seeing (eg O'Keefe)WP:BLP violation removed. PR^talk 17:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion about possible article hijacking and Cristol's reliability isn't helpful for resolving the matter-at-hand: a longstanding need for citations.Ken (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

An observation: upon reviewing early discussion and edit history log for this article, it's clear to me that early contributors were not well-disciplined in applying citations -- among other problems. So, we now have an abundance of uncited statements by contributors who have apparently lost interest. It seems to me that the original contributor(s), not others, should be advised and tasked with providing suitable citations, or else risk removal of their contribution(s). Of course, parsing the edit history log and issuing advisories to previous contributors (via talk pages) is not a trivial task, and it may not bear fruit. Anybody have ideas or can cite a WP for resolving this type of problem -- other than boldly removing the material, on the basis that it has remained uncited regardless of the longstanding warning at the article's head?Ken (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab, off-line this time, at applying citations to a small test-case paragraph. I was able to find sources, but upon reading them I found that several statements within the test-case paragraph were unverifiable. I then attempted to rewrite the paragraph -- it was poorly written away -- to render statements verifiable. After the first draft, it was obvious that the paragraph conveyed meaning different from the original author's or authors' intent. Thus, instead of simply finding sources and adding citations, I was performing a rewrite that effectively challenged the original work. What I thought would be a simple test-case became unexpectedly complex. I played around with the paragraph a bit, in an attempt to honor the spirit of its original intent; but in doing so, I found myself asking: Why am I wasting time attempting to determine original intent and cleaning up another person's mess? Needless to say, I gave up and trashed my citation sourcing and application effort.

After this eye-opening experience, I'm convinced that folks who submit uncited statements must be held accountable for finding sources and applying citations; otherwise, after allowing a reasonable time for applying citations, the statements must be removed due to non-verifiable -- all in the spirit of attempting to make wiki and this article highly verifiable sources of information.Ken (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing that with us? I totally agree that citations are needed, the article is in a poor state. However, its hardly likely to be fixed by other editors shoe-horning in more fringe theory material with undue prominence. Part of the problem is the article by its nature tends to attract SPA with an agenda related to one or more fringe theories or with anti-semitic motives. Its difficult to improve the article when you're spending all your effort on keeping the article balanced. Oh and I don't know who O'Keefe is but just about every source I've seen rates Cristol's work as accurate. Justin talk 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

O'Keefe is the accountant Wayne keep trying to cite as a "reliable source" on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the answer it appears Jayjg does not want you examining O'Keefe's reliability too closely. O’Keefe is a CPA working on a master’s degree in strategic intelligence who plans to write his thesis on the Liberty attack. He has written pointing out areas of unreliability in Cristol's book and claiming no one can claim Israel is exonerated or culpable until there has been an investigation that addresses that question. BTW...Christol's book is Cristol's own doctoral thesis and is relevant to No 1. of the above list that PR posted. My own research indicates that the "critics" mentioned in that sentence is Cristol himself (and others citing Cristol) claiming Kidd personally told him he believed the attack was an accident despite other sources who also spoke to Kidd claiming he believed it was a coverup just as Boston claimed. This is a good example of why so many cites are required. Wayne (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps a good example of why so many cites have been neglected. Whatever the case, identifying sources, applying citations, and purging stuff that nobody cares to source and cite will help improve the quality of the article.Ken (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And in regards to No 2. The earliest and only mention I can find of this outside of wikipedia is a 1991 article by Hirsh Goodman in the The Jerusalem Report "Mistakes are not uncommon in war. The day before the Liberty was attacked, Israeli warplanes bombed and strafed an Israeli armored column near Jenin in the West Bank. During the Lebanese war, in June 1982, over 20 Israeli servicemen were killed when a Phantom jet pilot mistakenly identified Israeli tanks as Syrian. In May 1987, in the Gulf, the USS Stark was accidentally hit by Iraqi warplanes, killing 37 servicemen. An Iranian civilian airliner was shot down by an over-anxious American battleship crew in May 1988, killing all 290 passengers on board. So it was with the Liberty" While the other friendly fire claims are documented, there is nothing anywhere that supports that first claim. Wayne (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin, unfortunately, I edited the test-case using Notepad and closed without saving; immediately after closing, I realized it would have been a good idea to save the result -- messy as it was -- for future use. Anyway, the test-case paragraph was the following, taken from the "Details in dispute" section, item "Israeli offers of help": "Reports differ regarding whether the Israeli boats offered help. Some crew members claim the torpedo boats simply withdrew, while the captain and the Israeli crew report that help was offered; the captain testified before the court of inquiry that he had asked the Israeli boats to stay away by the means of signal flags. Ennes acknowledges the Israelis offered help but claims they only did so at 4:30, the same time cited in the Israel Defense Force's History Report about the attack."

I was unable to find a notable source to verify the phrase: "Some [Liberty] crew members claim the torpedo boats simply withdrew..."

I found several notable sources to verify the Liberty's captain and the MTB division commander testified about help being offered by the Israelis, but nothing about the torpedo boats' crew per se testifying.

I was unable to find a notable source to verify that Liberty's captain had signaled the patrol boats to "stay away" per se, but found one giving his testimony about signaling, via signal flags, "NOT UNDER COMMAND", implying "stay away", after an offer of help was issued by one of the patrol boats.

In Ennes' book, a possible source for the Ennes bit, I found statements where he claims that a help offer from the Israelis was issued at about 4:30 P.M. It wasn't stated in the form of an "acknowledgement" or admission, but simply as a fact.

Using the Israel Defense Force's History Report as a source, I was able to find a statement about the patrol boats issuing an offer of help at about 4:30 P.M. So, this bit of information was verifiable.

With the above sources in hand, and being unable to verify one phrase in the paragraph, I began rewriting the paragraph, and applying citations for verifiability. The result was a paragraph that seemed to not be a detail in dispute. So, I attempted to rewrite to read more like a detail in dispute, etc. The result was as explained previously.

Regarding the reliability, or lack thereof, of O'Keefe or Cristol: As I stated in response to PR, I don't see where or how this fits into the topic of this section; so, I'll leave that dog sleeping.Ken (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While we must be very careful of OR, we must be even more careful of who we treat as dependable.

Cristol's "The Liberty Incident", 2002 gets 1 citation (and his Ph.D gets two) according to Google Scholar.

Ennes's "Assault on the Liberty" in 1979 got 5 citations and his 1993 book got 11 citations.

So how come we're treating Cristol as being so much more authoritative than Ennes?

I can't do the same check on Moorer's report, but the imbalance in treatment there is huge.

There's a different problem analysing Bamford - but he's much, much better regarded than Cristol eg Bamford's "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-secret National Security Agency", 2001, Doubleday, is cited by 47. The (same?) book "Body of secrets", Bamford, Arrow, is cited by 17. "Body of Secrets: How America's NSA and Britain's GCHQ Eavesdrop on the World", Bamford, 2001 Century, is cited by 5. "The Puzzle Palace" contains several pages on the USS Liberty, the 2 editions are cited a whopping 133 times.

In summary, the books/web-sites/report of Cristol and Ennes (and Bamford and Moorer) need to be treated in a fashion that reflects policy.

And of course, either this article needs references put in, or all (most?) of the 60 statements listed above need taking out. PR^talk 14:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found unverifiable statements in all of the works you cited. Of the three authors, Ennes seems to be the only one who has made a concerted effort to correct his original publication via errata pages in subsequent publications of his book, and on his website. Due to divergent opinions and misstatements among the authors (secondary sources, for the most part), I prefer citing primary sources as a means for verifying statements of non-obvious fact; albeit, these are not foolproof (i.e., OR sometimes shows them as wrong), but at least they bypass any information filtering or misrepresentation by secondary sources.

Due to divergence of opinion, by the various authors, I believe sources should always be clearly stated for any statement of non-obvious fact. For example, instead of writing something like, "The rose was red.", write, "Shakespeare claimed, 'the rose was red.'" Of course, the source should be cited too; but by making clear the source directly in the statement, it makes clear to the reader that the rose's color was the opinion or view of Shakespeare, not necessarily a widely accepted fact or opinion.Ken (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Most can probably be modified to reflect the sources. For example while we can get rid of the specific friendly fire example as it is unsupported; I checked a few Israeli military reports of the week in question and found no record of it despite mention of the Liberty and El-Arish attack, it is still a possible scenario so someone probably did propose friendly fire so we find a source claiming that. BTW those records detail the El-Arish attack and bear no resemblence to the WP mention. For example the attack took place earlier than the 11:45 claimed and it was believed right from the start that an Egyptian ship offshore had done it and no one claimed an unidentified ship was responsible as written in this article. The records do say orders already in place to attack unidentified ships were re-issued after the attack but this was not related to any unidentified ship involved in a specific incident. It seems most of the disputed sentences are OR based on RS so rewording and adding cites should fix the problem. Wayne (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly the grammar of many of those tagged sentences either matches the Jewish Virtual Library or Cristol's book. The claim for 14 miles is just one of many that comes from the Virtual Library and they cite the "US source"...Cristols book! No reliable US or Israeli source claims the Liberty approached that close. The Israeli radar plot has the Liberty, at it's closest, further out than 14 miles 2 hours after the attack on El-Arish and official US sources have it even further offshore at that time. Wayne (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Virtual Library is certainly as reliable as the Survivors website....though....that tells you more how little I rate the survivors website than it does about my views on the Virtual Library. However, that said, if the only source we find is Cristol, we should specify Cristol. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, a source for some of Cristol's accusations could be his website. Can one of the techno people who know confirm if this is indeed Cristol's webpage, as it purports to be. If so that might clear up a few cites (It includes his accusations against Boston) --Narson ~ Talk • 17:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We should use the survivor sites with caution, but there's no obvious reason for them to be less reliable than Cristol (and I've seen nothing to suggest that they lie). But our use of the JVL needs to be cautious indeed - Mitchell Baird wrote this, a straight-forward denialist piece on the Deir Yassin massacre. He's also the author of the utterly and completely unreliable "Myth and Facts". PR^talk 20:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Being shot at makes you an expert on nothing more than being shot at. Edited to add: Not that I'm precluding their use as a source, I just think they are useful as a source for one side of the 'what happened on the ship'. We just shouldn't use them as a source for what the Israeli pilots knew or what they were feeling or quantum theory. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, it may be instructive to review the USS Maine article. There you will see an article that's grossly lacking in citations; and it includes information about independent investigations, as well as government investigations. Additionally, the article involves various theories about who attacked or what sunk the Maine. Yet, nobody seems to be all hot-and-bothered about the verifiability of its content, the fact that it contains unsourced paragraphs about several independent investigation, or theories that one might consider as on the fringe.Ken (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Wayne for the work he is putting in, though it did highlight one section that baffled me slightly.

Distinctiveness of USS Liberty's appearance: One major dispute is whether the Liberty would have been immediately recognized as a different ship from the Egyptian ship El Quseir. Critics of the Israeli attack argue that the Liberty was distinctive, and "bristling with antennae." Admiral Tom Moorer stated that the Liberty was the most identifiable ship in the US Navy. Israel says the identification as the El Quseir was made by the torpedo boats while the Liberty was enveloped in smoke and was based on "The Red Book", a guide to Arab fleets that did not include U.S. vessels. Those who believe the attack was intended against a different ship point out that the Liberty was originally built as a cargo ship—the Egyptian ship El Quseir was a cargo vessel and superficially resembled the Liberty. (Web site with images of both ships)

The essay appears to have been written by Ken and well, doesn't quite work as a source (encourages users to OR possibly?). I'd suggest deleting that point or trimming it down? --Narson ~ Talk • 15:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's 3am Sunday morning here so i'm about to wrap it up for a while..and yes I do have a life.. I'm an insomniac lol...Back to Narson, in what way is it not a good source? The text for the paragraph is from Cristols book while Kens text with the pictures is very similar with the main difference being a list of differences which should not be OR as the differences are verifiable. The page shows photo's of both ships and also copies of the identification pages the Israeli torpedo boats used to identify the Liberty. As such it is relevant as long as pictures of both are not in the article. I would however have no problem with a different source if you can find one showing both ships. Wayne (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It was the link (not placed by me) to my OR essay that got me interested in contributing to this wiki article. When somebody lands on this wiki article, my tracking service shows a wiki hit on my site. Of course, seeing these wiki hits piqued my interest; and here I am today. In my opinion, linking to my essay is a backdoor way of introducing OR into the article. Of course, I have no problem with anybody linking to my essays or the essays' content; but in this case, I suggest linking to only the images of El Quseir or the side-by-side comparison image. Albeit, one could construe my images as being OR. In that case, simply provide two links, one to an image of USS Liberty and one to an image of El Quseir taken from Jane's -- assuming copyright limitations are honored. That should resolve any OR concerns.Ken (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Distinctiveness of USS Liberty's appearance paragraph, the phrase "Critics of the Israeli attack..." needs to be replaced by citing a specific source or sources.Ken (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I added that link then as you have done some good work here Ken. I agree that a side by side picture in the article would be better. If someone can add them to commons then we can exchange the pics for the link. As for your last point...atm I'm only correcting with sources the most obviously incorrect (the easiest). I'll look for references for things like that when I have more time as i don't like to use Liberty websites if I can find more independent sources. Wayne (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Kens pictures of the ships are not the best option. They are deceptive. The ships are shown equal in size when the El Quseir is actually half the length of the Liberty. Wayne (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am concious that I am constantly the guy saying 'Rawr no', so be assured I take no great pleasure in being the constant 'downer'. The issue with OR is that if you look at one picture then at the other and compare them yourself, that is OR. If you have a picture and say what the picture shows? That is fine. Or if you have some pictures and can cite someone else saying they are similar/dissimilar. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well then, it sounds like it should be okay to include images from my site -- at least ones without emedded commentary or analysis markings. To the best of my knowledge, all of the images are in the public domain; so, copyright should not be a problem.

Regarding Wayne's point about the side-by-side comparison image showing the ships being the same apparent size and, thus, being deceptive. This was done to satisfy a valid argument, put forth by Cristol, that it's difficult to determine -- by eyeball -- the size of vessels at sea, without a side-by-side, equal distance comparison. Thus, showing the two ships side-by-side, at apparently the same size, mutes the size difference imperceptibility problem. Make sense?Ken (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the source for my El Quseir images is here: http://thelibertyincident.com/docs/arab-navies.pdf

As you can see, it's Cristol's site -- this should satify folks who believe only Cristol is a reliable source.Ken (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wayne? Can you elaborate on the 'ADL is unreliable/lying' thread? THe one you picked out before does seem more like opinion and not really a reason to exclude a body like the ADL. Though obviously we should cite claims about it, as Jayjg did, overtly (as they are an action group and thus liable to exaggerate one side over annother, or dismiss annother viewpoint out of hand), could you elaborate on the reasoning? (And can we all discuss this without reverting over it now, it is out for the moment, lets discuss) --Narson ~ Talk • 10:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The ADL reference lies in support of the claim it a reference for. Specifically it says "Boston's evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation but solely on alleged conversations with Admiral Kidd". If you read Bostons claim, a large part is actually "derived from his own part in the investigation". I maintain that a lie in support invalidates it's use as a reference for that claim. Overall I don't consider the ADL a reliable source as it is prone to extreme bias but I have no problem with it as a reference as long as the relevant part is truthfull. For example I used the ADL as a reference myself. Although much of the rest of that same ADL article was rubbish the part that mentioned what I used it as a reference for was not. Wayne (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That still seems like exaggerating a case/opinion rather than a lie to me, though I can understand where you are coming from on this. Action groups are tricky to deal with due to the extreme effects of bias and should only be quoted for their opinion. The way Jayjg had it, quoting the ADL directly as their opinion, not putting it forward as factual prose and reffed to it, is, in my opinion, acceptable (in the same way we treat the survivors, citing claims to them and being open it is their claims rather than fact). As it is, I have two essays to complete today and tommorrow so I won't be taking a huge part in searching for sources to fill in things today. Regardless,the article is starting to deal with the problems and thank you to Wayne for the effort put in, as from what I've seen he has dealt with both sides in an even handed manner. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it be a lie or not, isn't the main concern, within wiki, verifiability and not truth in regard to citing a source's opinion?Ken (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yellabina's Comments

To Narson et. Al. I have been following this for some time in regards to the Moorer report. Certain editors seem intent on blocking any entry in this regard on a host of what I believe specious argments. The report was compiled by an independent body. If you are only going to report investigations by US and Israeli bodies, paid by those governments, your treatment of the matter is inherently biased - both of those groups have a vested interest in presenting one theory of events. The Moorer group was manned by respected men trained in military analyis and intelligence gathering. This can not be in dispute. Further, the funding of this report is irrelevant - is government money more scrupulous than independent funding, I think not and I can show you any number of historical events that back me up. The fact that it was read into the congressional record does not make it't content necessarily fact. However, it does demonstrate the relevance of the report - the Anarchist's Cookbook for example has not been so entered to my knowledge. That fraudulent and hoax material has in the past been entered is also irrelevant. There is no such dispute in on this report, and if such came to light any entries regarding the report could be suitable deleted or edited in this forum. Again, no reason to include it. Various editors have included sufficient supporting documentation for the credibility of this report and its findings so it can also hardly be considered a fringe theory. And finally, although WP is not a democracy, you have tried to block the report for lack of concensus. This argument is in itself circular from your side. There are clearly a body of editors here and also readers who would like these references included here. But even if we accept your WP:NOT issues for the sake of argument, we still have the issue of editorial, intellectual, and academic integrity. To present an overview of the topic without citing a significant independent analysis of same is not good journalisitc practice. Hence the reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellabina (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm. We arn't journalists, we arn't here to titillate. The sourcing for the edit is, frankly, shit. The formatting is shit. The wording is shit. What it does is present the sourced views of several people involved in the report, and attempt to present that as sourcing of the report itself. If you think a source from 1990 is a reference for a report from 2003, then yes, we obviously disagree on things. As I have said for a while, the report /should/ be included, but third party coverage is useful and, frankly, almost required for conspiracy theories. WorldFacts can't be arsed to put the work in to find it using such pathetic excuses as 'newspapers don't exist from 5 years ago' and misrepresenting objections, finally relying on sentimentalist clap trap. You also appear to have ignored the other section which is, ignoring the formatting issues which could be fixed easily, relies on synthesis from a primary source that is hardly of the optimum quality in terms of scan and clarity. (Moved to its own section as it was randomly put in the middle of annother comment) Edited to add: I won't be reverting it again this evening. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply, the proposed edit fouls foul of a number of key wiki policies. WP:RS no secondary sources to back up that the proposed edit, relying solely on the original material, WP:OR and WP:SYN edits are original research and the sources used to synthesise an argument. It also fails WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE as it gives undue prominence to a fringe theory. If you want to include Moorer in the article, simple fix those problems, produce secondary sources, do some work and bob is indeed your fathers brother. Reams of emotional claptrap and accusations of censorship merely re-inforce the impression that its crap. Oh and you've had three reverts today break WP:3RR and you can guarantee I will report it. Justin talk 20:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is very little appearing on my searches through academic libraries about the report. I have one article, but that is the Admiral again. I'm going to check some more over the weekend. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that was my point above, its buried in between 100 line diatribes and naked appeals to emotion, a google search turns up zilch, nada, niente, absolutely nothing. Checking the cite on the wayback machine produced, you've guessed it, nothing. I can find no objective secondary sources that give it the time of day and the one cite (the one I couldn't find) was apparently written by Moorer himself. Justin talk 22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is my suspicion, but I said I would check so I will. JSTOR turns up bugger all. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson, first off sorry for my "arbitrary placement", it was not intentional as this editing system can be quirky it seems. I had intended to put it at the end of the discussion as one of you has kindly done. Primarily I am glad you agree that the Moorer report "should" be included, your criteria not withstanding. The issue of WP:UNDUE seems to rely on giving undue weight to a "fringe" theory. First off, as I pointed out, excluding such references and relying only on governmental reports in and of itself violate WP:POV and WP:UNDUE, giving extreme weights to those analyses, which any rational historian would agree are subject to bias, it has happened many times before. I need only point at a number of government funded studies of motorcycle helmets and marijuanna have both included the statement "to show that" in their mission statements - not good science, fair reporting, or good history. Now let us look at the issue of WP:FRINGE which also pops up regularly with WP:UNDUE in this context. I can not think of a more extensive or notable reference than having the report in the Federal Register. Well trained critical individuals made that decision, and not capriciously. Further, while you may have trouble finding other secondary sources directly for the report, the issues contained in the report are not unique to it and can be referenced. As such I find it difficult to see how this violates WP policies. In that context, yes a citation from 1990 may indeed be a relevant reference to a report from 2003. The subject matter is validated as not some unique oddball. As for the purpose here not being to "titilate". Perhaps the majority of TODAY's journalists do strive to titlate. However the journalisic and scientific tradition is based on reporting of facts and balanced viewpoints. As the article stands this is not the case. You may not be journalists, but based on all the WP rules that are cited here one would think there exists some editorial code whose goals are similar. I can point to another WP article which has a HIGHLY prejudical section in it because secondary internet sources do not exist, although I have personal direct eyewitness knowledge of the contrary. Such biases, and in this case I believe using WP:FRINGE and UNDUE as Catch 22's, is certainly not in the greater good of this resource, nor fair to the treatment of this subject, and certainly not the intent of WP rules. Certainly there is a treatment of this issue that will be both fair and balanced. Yellabina (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that Narson is using 4 letter words. It would be a concern if this is an emotion that becomes overwrought, and harms objectivity. As for whether there are any reviews of Moorer, it is reminiscent of how only the McClatchy news service wrote of the holes in the WMD in Iraq argument. This was in essence ignored by the MSM, as it seems Moorer is. Being ignored by the MSM doesn't change whether something is factual or not. Perhaps it even enhances the credibility. What I think I am seeing here is a classic tactic to counter a viewpoint: 1 - don't argue the viewpoint, 2 - ignore the viewpoint, 3 - if action is required, attack the credibility of the proponent 15thSt (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, verifiability over truth. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Primary vs Secondary Sources

Gentlemen, based on my own fact-findings efforts, I've found misrepresentations and unverifiable claims in all of the popular secondary sources. So, to varying extents, all are not trustworthy or reliable. Thus, the reason I prefer direct quotes from only primary sources for statement of fact.

(If I was king of Wikiland, I'd limit this article to citing only primary sources, and the "IDF History Report" and "NSA History Report" pseudo-secondary sources. Once you go beyond these sources, you enter the lands of Myinterpretation and Ihaveanagenda. But I'm not the king of Wikiland.)

Considering the inherit contentious nature of the sections entitled "Ongoing controversy and unresolved questions", "Details in dispute", and to some degree "NSA tapes and recent developments", and the fact that many statements in these sections remain uncited, under a longstanding citation warning, it seems to me that they should simply be removed from the article. Perhaps the "NSA tapes and recent developments" section could remain, but be broken into two sections: "NSA Tapes" and "Recent Developments" with complementary efforts to apply citations.

The purpose of the article should be to provide readers with a purely NPOV story about the USS Liberty incident or attack, from both the USG and GOI perspectives, not a place for people to post argumentative material from secondary sources that supports personal viewpoints. To this end, the history reports from the IDF and NSA should be more than adequate for a majority of the article, with occasional use of primary source material in a non-OR fashion.Ken (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to examine the historical record on the use of sources - WP was originally intended to be based on primary sources, it took a while before everyone started to realise the pit-falls and policy was changed to prefer secondary sources. In this case, we'd mislead people rather badly if we tried to work from primary sources.

Back to RS - there is a serious problem with it at this article - but not concerning Cristol's book (no matter how much we might dislike the book for the allegations of dishonesty, or dislike him over questionable integrity). RS discussions would concern the ADL. Well, except that that discussion is done and dusted. It doesn't even pretend to be one. PR^talk 16:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

One could potentially misinform people only by presenting original research based on primary sources; otherwise, a statement of fact (i.e., a verifiable quote or paraphrase thereof) taken from a primary source is not misinformation. The IDF and NSA History Reports are technically secondary sources, per wiki rules; thus, they are fully qualified as such.Ken (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, it's not a matter of liking or disliking any given secondary source author; the problem is that they all exhibit various degrees of bias and/or have unverifiable information in their writings. As such, an author (source) with a viewpoint opposite that of a wiki contributor faces the risk of being unacceptable as a reliable source. This then leads to much time wasted discussing the merits of one source v/s another and editing wars, with no end-in-sight. Thus, the reason for my proposal.Ken (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the purpose of the article should be to write a purely NPOV article but that requires secondary sources, it does not mean we have to give undue significance to fringe/conspiracy theories. I've seen no convincing criticism to show that Cristol is unreliable and self-published essays WP:SPS are hardly reasons.

And apparently one person criticising Cristol claims that Cristol asserted Napalm wasn't used. [4], [5] and [6]. Justin talk 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is Walsh, making the claim about the napalm? Answer, as best I can see, one person who has read the Ennes book and contributed a "Letter to Editor of the US Naval Institute Proceedings". Along comes Harris (visited the Liberty many hours later) who tells us the Walsh letter is rubbish and expresses his opinion that it was all an accident.

It's really quite puzzling that Cristol considers this letter worth publishing on his web-site on the subject (there are some other seriously trivial documents in there I notice). It's quite puzzling that Cristol thinks it worth publishing the long "timeline.pdf" on the history of the Six-Day War, when a time-line of the attack itself would seem much more relevant (in fact, I was going to enquire about getting one into this article). PR^talk 19:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's all stop spinning around in this never-ending contest of "my dog is stronger than your dog", and attempt to limit ourselves to the two sources suggested previously. Two authoritative secondary sources exist: the IDF History Report and the NSA History Report. Both of these sources describe the incident in a manner true to their reference material, and represent the viewpoint of both sides. In these respects and others, the history reports are both trustworthy and authoritative; i.e., they are reliable. If anybody wants to write about every facet, detail and motive theory (fringe or otherwise) related to the incident, by every secondary source who has ever commented on the incident, then I suggest writing a book instead of attempting to cram it all into this wiki article.Ken (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this bit of discussion has been broken away from the previous section and named "Secondary vs Primary sources." Anybody who actually reads my proposal, at the head of this new section, should comprehend that it has little to do with secondary v/s primary sources; but if that's how you guys want to cast it, then so-be-it.

Upon that note, I find that I must leave Wikiland for a short vacation. Y'all have fun casting stones at one another and counting the number of angles on a pinhead while I'm gone.Ken (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source for Israel's Non-punitive Payment Values and Dates

For anybody in need of a reliable secondary source for Israel's non-punitive payments: "In May 1968, Israel paid $3,323,500 [U.S. Dollars] as full payment on behalf of the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. Eleven months later, Israel paid $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded. The U.S. claim of $7,644,146 for material damage to the Liberty itself was not settled until 18 December 1980 when Israel agreed to pay $6 million." (NSA History Report, page 64, http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/attack_sigint.pdf)Ken (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I found quite a few for $8 million (exactly) for the liberty itself but for the humanitarian compensation it was hard to find a consensus among sources. The ADL website said it was 6.7 mil for each and even the Liberty survivors website goes along with that although they also mention other amounts depending on the writer. 99.9% of sources don't even mention dates so I assumed (wrongly) the dates I did find were correct. Other sources such as authors/historians etc were closer to the mark but generally rounded off the millions or lumped them together which implied they were paid at the same time. I can't understand why this data is misreported so much by the media. I have trouble loading pdf files due to the slow speed of my connection which makes it difficult to check sources such as the one you found because they usually freeze on me if they dont finish loading quickly enough. Another question though Ken...Some sources (not reliable enough for here) say the U.S. asked for interest on the money requested for the Liberty but waived it after Israel's offer. Is this correct?. Wayne (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the report is from 1981. So we'd have to reflect that and say that 'as of 1981 Israel had payed 12 quatloos to Jim and 14 zubecks to Bob' or whatever it says. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1980 payment was supposed to "finalise" compensation so we can just add any further payments if any are made in the future. Wayne (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Serendipity. The $6 million was paid in installments of $2 million over three years. Congress voted Israel an extra $2 million a year in aid over the same three years. Coincidence? political? we'll never know but it's funny just the same. Wayne (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, a PDF copy of IDF History Report is on Cristol's site: http://thelibertyincident.com/docs/israeli/IDF-history-report-en.pdf

For anybody without a high-speed link to the Internet, I suggest visiting a library with Internet access. Typically, at least in the States, libraries have high-speed links and allow users to download and print PDF files.Ken (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Another approach is to "right-click" on the hyperlink to the PDF file, then select "Save target as" to download and save the PDF file on your computer; instead of simply clicking on the link to download via your PDF reader. Of course, after saving the file, then you can open it with your PDF reader. Also, I've found some dial-up ISPs (e.g., AOL) appear to force a time-out if a download takes too much time -- regardless of download method.Ken (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ken. I never even thought of that. As I said before..I'm not all that computor literate lol. We don't have AOL in my country (we did but they folded) however my ISP does have an auto log out after 5 minutes if a new page doesn't finish loading. Causes problems if I'm reading something and forget to open a new window as it cost me 35c to reconnect as well as the time wasted. Wayne (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahron Bregman's A History of Israel and the air-to-ground tapes

This book, by a reputable Israeli historian and published by a reputable UK publisher, contains what Bregman says are extracts from transcripts of the air-to-ground communication between the Israeli pilots and the air control tower in Tel Aviv. I reproduce here part of the salient extract, from p.120:

As the tapes clearly show, the drama begins at 13.50 with Colonel Shmuel Kislev, the Chief Air Controller in Tel Aviv, radioing to the leader of the Kursa Flight, consisting of two Mirage IIIC aircraft armed with 30mm guns and a few air-to-air missiles: 'You've got a ship [a reference to Liberty - AB] in location 26.' Kislev then proceeds with his instruction: 'Now, take the Kursa Flight to there. If it's a warship - attack it.' While the Kursa Flight is on its way to locate Liberty, at 13.53 a question - very clearly heard over in the tapes - is aired in the control room in Tel Aviv: 'What is it? An American [ship]?'
What then follows is extraordinary and, indeed, highly suspicious, and seems to indicate a possible cover-up by the Israelis: Colonel Kislev picks up an internal phone and asks the superior - the Commander of the Air Force? The Deputy Commander of the Air Force? - 'What do you say [about the query just raised regarding to the ship's identity]?' The reply he gets is: 'I don't say.' The tone: 'I don't want to know.'
At 13.56 the leader of the Kursa Flight is given permission to strike. Given that the possibility that the ship is American is on the cards, one could have expected a responsible military commander to instruct his pilots to investigate before dropping their bombs - to look, for example, for a flag. But no. Colonel Kislev in an impatient voice is heard over the tapes, saying: 'I have already said: if this is a warship ... to attack.' What follows is the first run on the ship and at 13.59 the leader of the Kursa Flight reports to air control: 'We have hit her very hard. Black smoke is coming out. [...]'

Apart from the last ellipsis, which is mine, all other sections within square brackets are in Bregman's original text. He goes on to describe the rest of the attack and, who consults the book can confirm, he nowhere concludes that the Israeli pilots mistook the Liberty for an Egyptian ship. In the Preface, by way of apologising for the book's relative shortness, he is even more explicit: "Having said that, this relatively short volume contains much new, never before published material. Noteworthy are rare extracts from a radio exchange between air control and Israeli pilots on the fourth day of the Six-Day War, which shows that the Israelis did realize, quite early, that the ship they were bombing was indeed the American USS Liberty, but nevertheless went on to attack her [...]'.(pp.xviii-xix) I post this material here for anyone to do with it what they will; I have no interest in getting involved in the kind of dispute that this talk page mostly consists of (to the discredit, IMO, of many of those involved). Lexo (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, isn't this interesting; seems to give some more umph to the crew's side. Thanks for the addition. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I reproduce below the rest of Bregman's account of the air-to-ground conversation, exactly as reprinted in A History of Israel, continuing on from the previous extract. The first ellipsis in square brackets is mine, all the rest are in Bregman's text:

[...] Black smoke is coming out. Oil is spilling out of her into the water. Yofi (splendid)...Yotze mehaclal (extraordinary). She is burning. She is burning.' Two minutes later, at 14:01, Kursa Flight reports again: 'OK. I have finished. I have just finished my ammunition. The ship is burning. There is an open fire on her. Very big and black smoke.'
At 14:03, Colonel Kislev instructs yet another flight — the Royal Flight, consisting of two Super Mystère jets armed with 30 mm guns and two canisters of napalm, to continue with the attack. 'You can sink her', says Kislev to the Royal Flight. Then the instructions of the leading pilots to his colleagues can be clearly heard over the tapes: 'We attack...go up...together...We will come from her front...mind the masts...don't bump into the masts...I will come from her left you from the right behind me.'
At 14:14 a pilot can be heard over the tapes asking: 'What state [does the ship belong to]? Kislev: 'Probably American.' Pilot: 'What?' Kislev: 'Probably American.' Nevertheless, and in spite of the positive identification of the ship as American, 12 minutes later, at 14:26, three Israeli motor torpedo boats arrive on the scene and at 14:31 attack her with five torpedoes which put Liberty out of action. According to the Israeli official narrative, they had tried — but failed — to warn the navy not to attack and it was only after the attack when a helicopter was sent in order to render assistance that the vessel 'was finally identified as a ship of the US Navy'.

I have reproduced this exactly as printed in Bregman's book, including the failure to close quote marks after the pilot's query "What state [does the ship belong to]?" and also the run-on phrase "I will come from her left you from the right behind me." This is so that nobody thinks I'm transcribing badly. Lexo (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I have Bregman next to me and this is a faithful reproduction of the text. Obviously this read on events is disputed by people, like Oren's Six Days of War (Published the year before Bregman) which says:

At this point - 1:54 - one of the IAF controllers, Lzar Karni, whose function was to listen to ground-to-air communications and make occasional suggestions, blurted out, "What's this? Americans?" He later told Israeli investigators that his question arose from a guy feeling, his sense that the Egyptians were unlikely to send a lone boat to shell al-'Arish. Yet, when another controller on the line retorted, "Americans, where?" Karni did not respond. "An attack was underway on an enemy vessel," he tesitfied, "and I didn't think it was my palce to press what was merely a hunch."

He then goes on to describe Spector stating the vessel was "a military vessel, battleship gray with four gun mounts, with its bow pointed toward Port Said...[and] one mast and one smokestack" that it had no other markings "apart from some "black letters" on the hull". Then he speaks of the attack:

"We've hit her a lot," Spector reported, "I think she's putting out smoke on purpose, it's coming out of the smokestack." The chief IAF controller, Shmuel Kislev, twice asked whether the ship was responding with anti-aircraft fire, but the pilots seemed too engaged to answer.....The Mysteres were reading to strike again when the nav, alerted by the absence of return fire from the ship, warned Kislev that the target might in fact be Israeli. "If there is doubt [about identification], don't attack," Kislev told the pilots. The nav quickly contacted its vessels in the area - none were under fire - and signaled the air force to continue. "You may attack," said Kislev "You can sink it"......Kislev requested one last attempt to identify the ship "Look for a flag if they [the pilots] can see one. See if they can identify it [the ship] with a flag"....Zuk responded that "There's no flag on her" but noticed what he thought was the letter "P". He then corrected himself "Pay attention, the ship's markings are Charlie-Tango-Romeo five." "Leave her!" kislev cried.

I have skipped out some details there (I don't want to lift too much, but do recommend the book) and obviously it disagrees with the spin Bregman has put on things. They agree on some things but Oren includes some things that Bregman ignores and Bregman includes things that Oren ignores. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Spector quote, as Oren spins it, is interesting. He sees, distinguishes and reports the ship's color as "battleship gray", not light gray, dark gray or haze gray, but "battleship gray." Then he sees and reports four relatively small gun tubs, two very well-integrated into the superstructure, but he can't see or report that the ship has three tall vertical masts (one a tower mast), and two relatively large dish antennas. Further, he sees and reports black letters when the ship's large lettering was white. Amazing. I know this is OR, but either Spector was the most incompetent pilot who ever flew a fighter aircraft, or something is rotten in Denmark. But hey, a reliable secondary source reported it; thus, by the Wiki's definition of "reliable", it must be trustworthy information. If this quote is placed in the article, I suggest placing an aerial-view image of USS Liberty near it to provide balance; i.e., provide readers information to perform their own OR by comparing Spector's description with the actual appearance of the ship.Ken (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, USS Liberty's hull color was haze gray, not battleship gray. Battleship gray is a distinctive blue-tinted gray color that can be seen in an image of USS Texas, within wiki article: USS Texas (BB-35).Ken (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying my hull color remark: both Haze Gray and Battleship Gray are blueish. The noticable difference is that Haze gray is a medium-to-light shade of gray and battleship gray is a dark shade of gray. It's reasonable to believe that somebody not familiar with the colors might simply call any ship painted any shade of gray as being painted "battleship gray"; although, a less leading statement would have been to describe the hull's color as light or medium gray.

It would be interesting to hear the orginal IDF tapes, with the aid of a trusted Hebrew linguist, to determine Spector's exact statements, instead of having them filtered by Oren, Cristol and Bergman -- each apparently placing their own spin on the exact words spoken and their "tone."Ken (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone is a good point and there is a very clear example.
Cristol's book: LK: "What is that? Americans?" Shimon: "What Americans?" Kislev: "Robert, what did you say?" [No one answers.]
Bregman's book: LK: "What is it? American?" Shimon: "How do you mean, American?" Kislev: "Robert, what do you say?" Robert: "I didn't say" [the tone: I don't want to know].
The brackets are the authors respective comments. There is a problem with each, Why did Cristol say no one answers when clearly they did. Was the tone as Bregman claims? Then we have translation differences.
Cristol: Menachem: "Kislev, what country?" Kislev: "Possibly American."
Bregman: Menachem: "Kislev, what state?" Kislev: "Probably American."
Does Hebrew have the same word for "possibly" and "probably"? This translation difference changes the meaning. Wayne (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This goes to the trustworthiness (i.e. reliability) of the authors or the people who performed the translation. I believe Bergman performed his own translation, and Cristol claims he had three translators -- two of them native Hebrew speakers.Ken (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Cristol's translation contains nothing about Spector reporting the ship's hull color, color of her lettering or anything about seeing gun mounts; the only identification features he reports are: "It has one mast and one smoke stack."Ken (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The main critisms of Cristol are not about what he does say but what he doesn't. Nowhere in his book does he mention the significant and very relevant interview he did with Dwight Porter (US Ambassador to Lebanon). Then there is Staring's (senior Navy lawyer responsible for making sure the conclusions were correct before release) claim that he refused to sign off on the Naval Enquiries conclusions because they were not supported by the evidence. Cristol never interviewed Staring but claimed he didn't sign off only because there were "typos" he didn't have time to correct. Contradictions are another problem. In supporting Secretary of State McNamara's credibility he claims McNamara could not have contacted the sixth fleet by phone because the U.S. had no technical capability to do so (Pg 207 where McNamara denied making the call) then later in his book (Pg 411) Cristol claims McNamara made the call by phone (because if he didn't the recall was illegal). I have seen no similar critism of Bregman. Lacking such I assume he can only be criticised for his translations. Wayne (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I know for certain that the technical capability existed in 1967 for setting up a secure voice channel between WDC and the Sixth Fleet. Whether or not a secure voice channel existed, I don't know. I have a hard-cover edition of Cristol's book; so, your page numbers don't lead me to the information you cited. What are the chapter titles and approximate location within the chapter's where you discovered this information?Ken (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I should have said his dissertation not the book which is half the size. Wayne (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

<deident> On the hebrew question, let me ask my hebrew speaking friends and find out. On the paint, there are, at least over here, differences between battleship grey (being several colours used for battleships at various points) and Battleship Grey (a specific tone of grey)...even then it is not an important fact I don't think. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On the color: I tend to agree. The more important issue is that one author claims Spector reported the ship's color and four gun mounts, and another author makes no mention of Spector reporting the ship's color or gun mounts. This difference exceeds being able to distinguish shades of gray...Ken (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, there is the black letters v/s white letters issue, and one author not mentioning Spector seeing either black or white letters.Ken (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the IDF History Report says (page 14):

".... The formation leader, Captain Spector, descended to a height of 3,000 feet and circled the vessel twice; his number two executed one identification run. These runs revealed to the pilots that the ship was not an Israeli vessel since she did not have the identifying markings (a white cross on a red background). The ship was colored battleship grey, had a foremast, one smokestack and two guns an her bow. No flag or other identifying sign was discerned. The formation leader reported this to the torpedo boats and Control and then the aircraft received permission to attack."

Nowhere in Cristol's translation is there anything that reflects the pilots conducting ID passes, reporting the ship's color, sighting any guns or not observing an Israeli navy identifying mark. The History Report's passage sounds a lot like Oren's description, but not Cristol's translation. It seems reasonable to expect minor variations in different translations of a common source, but in this case either Cristol left out significant parts of the translation, or the IDF and Oren added stuff that was not actually reported by the pilots. I don't have Bregman's book at hand; so, I don't know the content of his translation for this part of the pilots' communications.Ken (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It is understandable that the IDF History Report contains errors as it was not an investigation but a summary of previous reports and claims compiled for the purpose of rebutting Senator Adlai Stevenson's report (he was pushing for a Congressional inquiry at the time). As such it is unlikely there would have been any significant fact checking. Wayne (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a long-after-the-fact, secondary document by the IDF, some "information ehnancement" may have been perform to help support the mistaken identity claim -- this appears to be the case. Thus, it seems that when statements of fact are involved, quoting and citing a primary source in a non-OR manner, instead of depending on a secondary source's interpretation or "spin", is one way to help improve the article's reliability.Ken (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Evan Toni

I've found references for the account of Israeli pilot Evan Toni but can't find any sources refuting him. Anyone know any? Wayne (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As best as I can determine, Evan Toni was either part of a hoax or truly one of the pilots who came forward and then suddendly dropped out of sight. Either way, I don't believe any secondary source has ever verified Evan Toni's identity; albeit, the fact that somebody calling himself Evan Toni communicated with James Ennes, representing himself as one of the pilots, appears to be reliably reported.Ken (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to change the article's title to: "The USS Liberty Saga"Ken (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You could be right lol. The more I look the more there is. I found references dated between 1982 and 1995 talking about Evan Toni speaking to Ennes and Rep. Paul McCloskey but then nothing. If he was genuine then it should still be a talking point for the liberty crew. The problem is nothing is around (that I can find) refuting him which is strange. Unless there is recent mention then he can't be considered reliable. Wayne (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The most recent mention I can find is in an article written by James Ennes in August 1995 where he complains that the media and Congress refuse to interview Evan Toni. I would have liked to have seen Toni's credibility refuted or supported rather than ignored but we can't have everything. Wayne (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Thread

Since its clear those editors wishing to insert the Moorer report entry have no intention of providing secondary sources to support that edit, and that the editors are prepared to try to use edit war to force that entry into the article, I have opened a thread at AN/I here. Perhaps a third part explaining why your edits don't conform to wiki policy might help. Justin talk 21:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This article was submitted for full protection at WP:RFPP. My own suggestion is that the edit history should be checked for evidence of edit-warring. People who have edited this article but are willing to participate in a good-faith discussion of the Moorer report on this Talk page, and supply appropriate references, should be off the hook. Continued reverting without new evidence should receive attention from admins. This especially applies to people who join in reverts of the same material that has been reverted before. See WP:Edit war for the possible sanctions, which include blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin I would be happy to discuss this issue, particularly with regard to WP policy. The primary issue here seems to be WP:FRINGE. This guideline defines a fringe theory as one that deviates from the prevailing or mainstream view. There has been a gross logical error in attempting to apply this guide to the Moorer Report. Specficially, the Moorer Report is NOT the theory. The theory is: "The attack on the USS Liberty was a deliberate and premeditated action on the part of Israel." You can extend that as you wish to include motivations if you like but the statement is sufficient as stands. Is this a fringe theory by WP standards? Arguably yes since it conflicts with Official dogma on the question. However, I will also add that there is "I have an alternative interpretion and facts" fringe, and there is "Aliens landed in my back yard and told me JFK will be assassinated" fringe. The USS Liberty issue clearly falls in the former rather than the latter, and the two can not be treated equally, be that as it may. Regardless, this theory existed prior to the Moorer investigation and was voiced almost immeditely by numerous ranking sources, and continues to be discussed across the internet and on at least one very professional film documentary. Question: Do we have notable and credible references and sources that merit inclusion of this theory in WP. Yes, we have the Moorer report. The Moorer Report is not the theory, but the source reference. Is this investigation and source credible and notable? Yes. The members empaneled for this investigation are all men of the highest repute, who all have exemplary careers in the military and politics. And indeed their sworn duty during their careers was to uphold the Constitution of the US and protect it. They spent their lives in fulfilling that goal, in the pay of the US government, and subject to continued administration by that body as retirees. So the question of credibility must be answered with yes as they had much to loose in ultimately finding a confliciting analyses. Any question of their motives, methods, or accusations of being shills must be accompanied by irrefutable evidence. Further these men are all trained in political, military, and intelligence analysis. Not a single credible reference has been provided to call these mens qualificaitons, abilities, or motivations into question. So yes again their credibility is of the highest regard. Let us look at the notable issue for a moment. Is this invesitgation notable? Yes on many grounds. We have a group of high ranking men who are empaneled to re-investigate a matter long closed by the governments involved. A highly notable event. Upon completing an investigation that has received no subtantial or credible refute in it's objectivity, motives, or form, their finding are given creedence in the Congressional Record. Again a very notable event, particularly since their findings conflict with previous governmental views. So, we have a theory, we have an independent credible and notable source that investigates that theory and is in agreement with it. As far as I can see all the requirements for WP:Fringe have been met. The demand for sources on the source is unnecessary, and a game you can play ad infinatum if you wish to exclude any reference you wish from WP. This was clearly not the intent of WP:FRINGE. The quantity of sources is not the prime determining factor as WP:FRINGE clearly states, but quality is paramount. You could not ask for a higher quality and authoritative source for the theory "Israel's attack was deliberate" than the Moorer Report. Yellabina (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Which part of "you need to supply secondary sources to support your edit" do you not understand? Which part of WP:OR do you not understand, you do not on wikipedia get to synthesise (WP:SYN) your own conclusions from original material. I have looked and cannot find a single secondary source to support the edit that is proposed. Having pointed this out it is incumbent on you to provide a secondary source. This does not include editorials written by Moorer himself. If this is such a high profile investigation, by high profile professionals, the web should be replete with secondary sources and guess what, it isn't. Another of wiki policies is that you don't give undue prominence to fringe material. The relevant policy is:

Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, is strongly discouraged. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.)

This is exactly what you're trying to do here. Justin talk 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin once again you miss the point. Theory: "Israel's Attack Was Deliberate". This theory existed prior to Moorer and is still a subject of discussion in many circles if you care to look. Independent research, hearings, analysis, report, and acceptance of same by Congressional Record all in Moorer Report. That other authors have or have not picked this report up is irrelevant. We have fringe theory, we have credible, notable souce that discusses it, also having been reviewed by Congressional Authorities for inclusion into record = Credible, Notable, Source on a theory that may be considered fringe. The statements regarding the Theory are made by noted individuals and reviewed by others as credible and accepted. The WP:FRINGE has been met. As for WP:NOT. The Moorer commission did not invent this theory on their own. It was expoused by others previous to the report. Those asking for it's inclusion are not asking to have their own proclomations read into the article. You have shown no evidence that the Moorer report in any way represents an invention of the commission nor a promotion of some pet theory of their own design. Read WP:FRINGE and you will see that my discussion is completely in keeping with both the text and intention of that section. Instead of searching for what you consider references to the Moorer report, according to WP policy you should be looking for alternative theories to the incident. In addition if you look at the coverage in film documentary you will also find a very nice treatment of the subject that discusses the possiblity of a deliberate attack at length. The Moorer report is one that best summarizes those theories, is notable, and credible. In my discussion I have made no personal proclamations, nor attemped to "inflate" the importance of this report. And I resent the accusation. I have pointed out that the individuals involved are notable public figures with stellar records and their findings have been accepted by the Congressional Record, again notable. Do not get ahead of yourself. I have in this section only discussed issues related to WP:FRINGE. I am attempting to engage in a neutral discussion of WP policy here point by point in a rational manner. Unfortunately I detect a hint of emotion in your response. If you are going to acuse me of something, please justify your statements, be concise, and cite examples from my posts. Yellabina (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to correct, there is no 'reviewing' for inclusion into the congressional record that I'm aware of. It is merely a record of what was said/done at the US congress. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that note Narson. We can perhaps agree that while a review in the formal sense is not in place, that a review by responsible authoritative individuals must take place before it gets to that point of recording. The act is not arbitrary. Yellabina (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A US Congress-person or Senator can say whatever he or she pleases in the US Congress and it will (should) appear in the Congressional record. Whether or not folks in the US Congress are responsible or authoritative is an often debated issue, and to-date remains unresolved.Ken (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle Ken :) I think the confusion is Hansard vs Congressional Record. Hansard (the UK parliament record) engages in removal of repetition, procedural elements and obvious errors. It also adds in editorial notes for clarity. Congressional Record is, I believe, a faithful reproduction (Though I /think/ it can be edited post debate by members, not sure if it is made clear which bits are post debate edited though, I am no expert on US government publications), there is no editorial oversight. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ken I like your style!! Unfortunately if we get off on the issue of Congressional competence in general it could either be a very long discussion or on the other hand maybe a very short one, interesting in any case. I will add this however. On 7 October 2004 (published 11 October 2004) the Honorable John Conyers read the findings, in it's entirety, of the Moorer commision before Congress, as part of an honor in light of Moorer's passing. I hardly think he would have done this to say "Hey, they guy is a loon and here is his last rant." Indeed on this solemn occasion it was deemed fitting to honor the man with what at least one congressman found to be one of his highest achievements. Again it all points to a notable work. Yellabina (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos; I thought a bit of humor might be enjoyed -- least we take ourselves too seriously. I agree that the Moorer Commission's members were not a bunch of goofballs attempting to promote a fringe theory. Admiral Moorer was one of the most widely experienced, respected and honorable men who served in the US Navy, and Rear Admiral Staring was a former head of US Navy JAG Corps and the original reviewing attorney for the USS Liberty Naval Court of Inquiry proceedings. If these men, and the others on the Commission, don't qualify as experts of high regard and reliability, then I can't image who else would. As such, I believe that directly citing the Commission's report, as a primary source and with due attention to wiki guidelines for use of primary source citations and material, should not be an issue. Of course, as an independent investigation, the Moorer Commission's findings are not in the same category as those of an official government investigation; and, as such, it would be misleading to accord them the same degree of weight as an official government investigation's findings -- regardless of the findings' text appearing in the US Congressional record.Ken (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You have my point exactly Ken, on the issue of weight. All those men are reliable, but only based on their government positions. Hence they cannot be more reliable than the governent from whom they draw their repute (If you say that the thing on whose reliability and honour you rely on for your own is a liar......). MRG has found some sources, and we have one from Fox News. We have secondary sourcing, I think, to possibly draw together a sentence that 'Admiral Moorer, a critic of the official version of events, chaired a non-governmental investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty. The committee held Israel to be culpable.' sourced to a fox news piece. I havn't confirmed the source yet but, prima facie, it looks good enough for that. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson, great that you've found apparently reliable secondary sources. Removing reliance upon primary source material and its associated WP:OR and WP:SYN pitfalls should help satisfy previously expressed concerns.Ken (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson, don't have a problem with that edit in the slightest. Perhaps some people will get the point now! Justin talk 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put the edit in, let us see how people react to it. Or if they even notice it. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Getlemen, it seems we are making some progress, and we can agree as to the creditials and veracity of the Moorer report. I also agree let's not get too anal about this, it is after all just an intellectual excercise, not a Supreme Court case. However, I do think we need to tread carefully here as there are a number of editors here who would wish to exclude Moorer based on it's conclusions alone, as there are also probably people out there who would like the official versions stricken and the Moorer report placed in their stead - neither course is acceptable, and a fair course of action will necessarily certainly rile parties on both extremes simultaneously. Like clearing a minefield, one must tread carefully even if you have defused the issue under foot. It is not my intention to make more of Moorer than it is, but I do want to make sure it gets fair treatment and we do not run afoul of people throwing endless WP policy objections out there. I also do not wish to be pedantic, but all things considered it is worthwhile to very clearly define our boundary conditions before we begin to attempt formulations on the issue (thank you for that initial suggestion Narson). In this regard I still would like your thoughts on the issue of primary vs. secondary source. If you are calling Moorer a primary source in general, this leads us into an area where others may requre extensive secondary sources, again opening the door to endless and unwarranted debates about what is extensive and the credibility of those secondary sources, and endless, pointles, and unproductive pathway for anyone involved in this exercise. I believe this is not required to begin with. Again if we look at WP:FRINGE, at least in regard to the aspect of the Moorer report that deals with Israels culpability (the cover up aspects of the Official investigations MAY be another issue altogether), it is my contention that Moorer is not the primary source, but rather a secondary source that supports pre-existing theories. Some examples. It appears that Clifford Clark, after his 1967 review of the matter, stated that he believed the attack was deliberate (contrary to what Cristol claims). We have Dean Rusk and Richard Helms among others who it seems believed the attack to be deliberate prior to the Moorer Report. That the Moorer Commission called Rusk and Helms, for example, as witnesses does not invalidate such references. Rather it establishes that the theory pre-existed Moorer and the commission was invesitaging them in conjunction with all the other pre-existing and new data on the matter. As such, the Moorer Report is not the originator of this theory, and as I read the WP:FRINGE statements, is not therefore a primary source but rather a secondary confirming source that should be treated with more latitute on this question. Again, I understand your concerns about weight. That is a completely separate issue that we should address once we have this part of the context issue sorted out. Yellabina (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No one is suppressing Moorer, you've tried to shoe horn in an edit that is completely against wiki policies. There is nothing wrong with Narson's proposed edits. Justin talk 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion is baseless Justing. We have been dissussin WP policies here in a fair amount of detail. First off you have ignored the discussion until now. Further based on this discussion it would appear that Moorer is NOT conflicting with WP policies. Instead of sitting back and criticising, it would be nice if you provided some input into the process. Yellabina (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What utter nonsense, you've accused me and others of suppressing Moorer. Ignore discussion, I don't think so, I spelled out what was wrong with the edit and sought secondary sources for the article. You provided buttkiss. Moorer doesn't conflict with WP policies the edit you and others edit-warred to shoe-horn into the article did. The only people I see sitting back and criticising are the people contributing the emotional hyperbole and bad faith personal attacks. Justin talk 13:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Look son, this is the second time you have accused me of something, please refrain in future unless you can back it up. As far as I know I have not accused you or anyone else of "suppressing" Moorer. And as far as emotional hyperbole, look at what you just wrote. I have been trying to carry on an objective discussion of how WP policies relate to the theory that the attack was deliberate, and how the Moorer report in turn relates to that. I reverted one edit and have refrained from any such reverts or edits of the article until such time as I can determine, proactively, what possible issues may or may not be germain to it's (Moorer, it's content, and context) inclusion in this article. The very reason for doing this is to AVOID any time of edit wars in future on this issue. I have also not discussed that specific edit you refer to specifically because at this point it is too contentious to even try. I fail to see how any of this can be constued as emotional or bad faith. Yellabina (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys? Can you interact civilly or not at all? We don't need to be patronising to each other or talk about supression. No-one seems to have had issue with moorer's inclusion under my edit, so, shall we move on to more productive grounds? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Moorer et al are a primary source for his report, and the moorer report is a secondary-ish source for the attack (One we do have to be careful in using). Certainly the moorer report can be used to back up points that 'some claim blah', but while we have secondary sources now to cover what the moorer report itself says, it shouldn't be used as a source for itself, as it relies on us summarising and that is verboten. You'll find I have no desire to only have the Israeli account, Yellabina. I merely think we do need to treat the theory that the attack was deliberate, done in full knowledge that the ship was American, as a conspiracy theory and thus we do have to be careful, especially around the issue of what to use as sources. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yellabina, the Clark Clifford memorandums, and other officially sanctioned reviews of available evidence (i.e., the Navy Count of Inquiry proceedings, various USG messages, and the Israeli investigation report), for purposes of determining culpability, effectively concluded that there was no direct evidence to support that the attack was premeditated. On the other hand, all USG reviews of evidence for culpability concluded that evidence supported gross negligence by the attackers.

Clark Clifford Memorandum: "The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished."

CIA Memorandum: "The attack was not made in malice toward the US and was by mistake, but the failure of the IDF Headquarters and the attacking aircraft to identify the Liberty and the subsequent attack by torpedo boats were both incongruous and indicative of gross negligence."

So, as you can see, there are actually three positions regarding capability: mistake, without negligence (GOI position); mistake, with gross negligence (USG position); no mistake, premeditated (crew members' and various others' position). The article contains only minor mention of the middle-ground (i.e., mistake, gross negligence), but clearly it was (and I believe remains) the dominate official USG culpability viewpoint.Ken (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Ken. I was not really focussing of the third option, although it is of course a logical possibility. That should be discussed separately perhaps. I am aware that the officially recognized Clifford report does not support intent, but it is my understanding that his personal public comments were quite different. Agan, not that his personal opinion had been proven somehow, just that it was out there at the time. Yellabina (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson, I believe we are pretty much on the same page, and we can proceed in this manner for the time being at least (others may have different ideas in future I am sure). And yes, since the Moorer Report does explicitly state a conspiracy we can agree on that in relation to certain points listed in the findings. So we can now address the second critical aspect that has been thrown out there in objections to the Moorer Report, WP:POV. I think we can agree that Mooerer was not biased in their analysis, nor presenting their own opinion (e.g., it's conclusions were reached in a good faith investigation) and therefore any POV issues are primarily from the context of the article, and where, how, and the extent to which Moorer is treated. The article currently has a dedicated section for each offical invesitgation and then lumps opposing views under "On Going Controversy". One school of thought would be, in the interest of fairness, 2 sections on official invesitgations, one on Moorer, an independent and opposing view. As you mentioned, in a way we base our credibility of the official invesigtions on the reputations of those men, and extend Moorer and his crew the same respect, it seems only fair to grant them equal (actually 1/3) time on the matter. Alternatively the Controversy section would be a second choice, although there are some elements in the content and structure of this that I have some issue with. If it is to be placed here, it would make sense to put it in after the Rusk and perhaps Boston citations - again, pre-existing questions, Moorer follows up as an independent source on those theories and suspiciions. I will note here that with regard to the entire POV of the article I have with this section, and independently from this issue . This would also be more difficult becuase it seems to me this whole section is somewhat fragmented, and personally I think has some POV issues of it's own. One would first need to address appropriate placement, the issue of the controversy section may not be relevant and is not my priority at the moment, other than fitting in Moorer if that is the consensus. Yellabina (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the page due to problems with meatpuppeting and SPAs. See my comments at the RFCU case and the ANI thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Great ... I am looking forward to adding my edits in a few days.HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)