Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 6

Removal of the response to Boston's claims

User:WLRoss has been removing the ADL's response to Boston's claims, based on his personal belief that it "contains many outright lies" or "blatantly lies to support the claim". I must remind WLRoss that his personal feelings on who is telling the truth in these matters is irrelevant, and that, in any event, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The ADL blew it as a respectable commentator on anything over the Armenian business. For 25 years Israel and the ADL insisted there'd been no genocide on purely political reasons, because Turkey was an ally of Israel and couldn't be embarrassed. (The full story of this obstruction can be found here, though it's mysteriously been edit-warred out - perhaps an admin can explain to us why that happened).

The ADL even went as far as to sack one of its own regional organisers over this affair. Andrew H Tarsy publicly defended the ADL position on Tuesday, on Thursday he told Abraham Foxman that he found the ADL's stance "morally indefensible" and on Friday lost his job.

5 days later, on the 22nd of August 2007, the ADL reversed its position, Foxman saying "Upon reflection, the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide". Gee - isn't reflection a wonderful thing? The ADL doesn't bother checking established facts or the documentary record. It doesn't send experts to investigate or indeed contribute to the sum of human knowledge in any regard. Rather, Foxman sits and "reflects" and decides there was a genocide after all. Not that he does this alone, you understand, his solitude was broken by conference calls with Shimon Peres and Israeli foreign ministry officials, so that all their "reflections" and announcements could be coordinated in consultation with the Turkish president, who until then had veto power over historical truth for Foxman's ADL, who in turn has veto power over historical truth in articles at Wikipedia. PR^talk 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They took a political stance....your point? We quote the CIA world factbook, yet I assure you, the CIA has lied plenty of times over the years. Infact, I seem to recall that the former head of the US governmental system lied...The way Jayjg has worded it was perfectly appropriate to the source. Edited to add: I'm not going to revert it in tonight (though looks some someone else has). Don't worry. However I would point out that the way Jayjg used it was perfectly consistant with WP:V, as at worst it is a 'fringe' group, in which case they can be a source for their own views. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, we have quoted many other American and Israeli government sources for this article, and I can assure you that both governments have engaged in misinformation campaigns from time-to-time. If you can't trust government sources, who can you trust? He said with tongue in cheek...Ken (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:V says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Thus, the real concern here is the reliability of the ADL. (Via limiting to only reliable sources, wiki is indirectly interested in the truth; albeit, the "truth" as synthesized by reliable secondary sources.)

And what's a reliable source? WP:SOURCES says (synthesizing a bit): "...reliable ... sources [are ones with] a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...

So, does the ADL have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? If not, then it doesn't pass the reliability test, and cannot be used as a source; otherwise, its use as a source should stand.Ken (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Acctually, for use as a reference to its own statement there, it needs only be a questional source at best, under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. One could contribute a lot of previously questionable material, and thus bypass wiki's reliability requirement, as long as it passes the seven tests given in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources. It's not yet clear to me that the ADL quote passes the seven tests, but the "questionable material" exception is an interesting loophole.Ken (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert that edit yesterday as having looked at the ADL website and having done a little bit of digging I wasn't too convinced it would pass as a reliable source. I'm still not convinced it is appropriate for that statement. Justin talk 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, one would have to decide whether the ADL are a suitable group to be quoted. Which is a decision editors have to make. Personally, as it stands, the edit is ok, and better than a fact tag. I would rather have a more robust cite if I'm honest, but I accept that the article improves in degrees. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Trouble I saw with it, is that is was used as a source for Kidd's statement, which it really isn't. A robust cite is more suitable. Justin talk 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is pretty overt, and it replaced a plain statement that Kidd never said anything like that with a claim by a named source that Kidd never said anything like that. A cited and named claim is better, IMO, than an uncited statement of fact. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki says: "...questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, including in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;

2. it is not unduly self-serving;

3. it does not involve claims about third parties;

4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;

6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

7. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source."

The ADL's statement:

1. is relevant to the article, but it's unclear that it's relevant to the article's notability;

2. is self-serving in that it serves an ADL function to present arguments that negate non-flatering viewpoints directed at people of the Jewish faith and Israel;

3. does involve claims about an event related to the subject;

4. does involve claims about a third party;

5. is authentic;

6. is not a dominate source for the article;

7. is unknown to be specifically mentioned by an independent reliable source.

Based on failing many of the above tests (some admittedly uncertain) for the inclusion of questionable source material, it appears to me that the ADL statement must be considered a statement of fact. As such, the ADL must pass the "reliable source" test for inclusion of the statement in question.Ken (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you examine the wording you've used? I'm afraid I can't make sense of your claim.

I was attempting to convey that the ADL's statement cannot be allowed via the "questionable source" means, as suggested by Narson. At the very elemental level, the ADL's statement is not a statement about itself; thus, it fails even without testing via the seven tests cited above. Nonetheless, I ran the ADL's statement through the seven tests, as if it was somehow a statement about itself, and it still failed most of the tests. By failing the tests, allowing the ADL statement to stand under the "questionable source" umbrella is not viable. Thus, instead, the statement must stand under the "reliable source" umbrella, and be treated as a statement of fact. As such, it must be determined whether or not the ADL qualifies as a reliable source. Additionally, if the statement qualifies as an "exception claim" (see: WP:REDFLAG), then the ADL must be be qualified as an "exceptional source."Ken (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cristol rejects Boston's affadavit and we quote him (with NPOV respect) effectively calling Boston a liar. (And then give him a second bite of the cherry, filtered by the ADL?!).

Boston, a much more credible figure has put on record, under oath, much, much more damaging things about Cristol: "no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly disparaging terms. I find Cristol’s claims of a "close friendship" with Admiral Kidd to be utterly incredible. I also find it impossible to believe the statements he attributes to Admiral Kidd, concerning the attack on USS Liberty. ... purported to be his notes of our prior conversation. These "notes" were grossly incorrect and bore no resemblance in reality to that discussion."

This is on top of all the other UNDUE of Cristol over Ennes and Bamford, both of whom seem to be much better respected. This article is a serious mess, distorting the whole record. PR^talk 13:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is Boston much more credile figure than Cristol? There is one good point there, if the ADL we are quoting is just quoting cristol, then we should just link it back to Cristol or such. If ADL is merely parroting Cristol's claims as its own, that makes it more complex. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Boston is relating what he claims he personally experienced, and Cristol is relating what he claims he personally experienced. In this regard, they are equal. The advantage that Boston has over Cristol is the fact that Boston was with Kidd, on the damaged ship, for several days, and he played a significant role as the Court of Inquiry's senior counsel. Also, common sense tells me that two men well-experienced in sea (Kidd) and naval air (Boston) combat, aboard an extensively damaged ship with exceptionally high causalities, likely found it difficult to accept that it was all due to an innocent mistake and a brief attack. Thus, it's believable that both men privately exchanged views about the nature of the attack, among themselves. In this regard, Boston's credibility trumps Cristol's.Ken (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Cristol claim a relationship with Kidd as well? Not to mention his former job as a JAG et al. I am not an expert on Boston and Cristol, but from what I've seen I don't feel as though Boston has any 'leg up' on Cristol. Obviously just my opinion though. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see how you can claim that one man's credibility trumps another. Thats a POV issue for a start. Also having looked at criticism of Cristol's book its in the main positive that he produced an objective document; albeit one that upsets a lot of fringe theories as he debunks a lot of them. Justin talk 17:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin, this is a discussion page; direct or vailed POV expression is not uncommon on discussion pages, and to the best of my knowledge not disallowed by wiki unless it's purely for the purpose of spouting a POV or soapboxing. As to one man being more believable than another: I've put forth my argument and you don't accept it -- so-be-it.Ken (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cristol implies and claims many things; but he did not spend a week with Kidd and Boston, involved with conducting the Navy's Court of Inquiry. In other words, the fact that Kidd and Boston spent significant time together, were apparently friendly and communicated is without doubt. The claim that Kidd and Cristol were buddies is open to question. The evidence I see on Cristol's website (assuming it is really his website) is a letter from Kidd thanking "Dear Judge Cristol" for lunch and commenting on the Thames movie and some research findings that Cristol sent and showed him, several years before Cristol's book was published. We have no idea what research Cristol revealed to Kidd; thus, all the letter proves is that Kidd and Cristol once had lunch together, saw a movie and discussed some of Cristol's research that Kidd found reassuring -- nothing more, nothing less. Well, a bit more, at Cristol's request Kidd autographed an unrelated article he (Kidd) wrote. As far as I can determine, this was the extent of the Kidd-Cristol "friendship."

Ultimately, regardless of Cristol's relationship with Kidd, the matter as far as Wiki is concerned is about verifiability, not truth per se. If a reliable secondary source exists for these exceptional claims about Boston's integrity, then whatever the source states should be allowed and cited accordingly.Ken (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be going around circles. Does the ADL qualify as a reliable source or not? In other words, does the ADL have a reliable publication process, and are its authors generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative about the USS Liberty incident and Cristol v/s Boston specifically?Ken (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, and it does appear to be a pretty established link on wiki (Check out this tool and search for *.adl.org) --Narson ~ Talk • 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there are references to ADL.org on wiki, but wiki's "reliable source" test involves more than simply discovering various references to ADL.org on wiki. What must be established, according to wiki rules, is whether or not the ADL is regarded as trustworthy or authoritative about the USS Liberty incident and, for this case, the Cristol v/s Boston issue specifically. In other words, the "reliable source" test is article or subject matter specific because any given source may be reliable for matter 'A' but not for matter 'B'. To do this, if somebody can find clearly established (i.e., no doubt about it) reliable sources for the USS Liberty incident, and the Cristol v/s Boston issue specifically, that cite the ADL's USS Liberty material in a manner consistent with it being a reliable reference, then by default the ADL is reliable.Ken (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is indicitive of a wider consensus, usually, when there are 1000+ links to a website over wiki. As it is, I will check when I have the time, which may not be until next week (Essays. Gotta love them) --Narson ~ Talk • 07:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've had to proof read and rewrite two Anthropology essays this week so I've had to slow down the editing a bit. Wayne (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice Jayjg has chosen to ignore this discussion and not only put the reference back but made it even more prominant. I know verifiability trumps truth but surely it is a problem that this one is presented in such a way that it appears to be the truth to a reader? This is not the same as an opinion that may be in error which i believe is what that rule was intended to cover but is a claim made about Boston that is obviously false if the reader were to read the affidavit the claim is made for. I'm surprised the reference for Cristol's claim that Boston did not write the affidavit and that Saudi Arabian interests paid for it wasn't added as well (Cristol claims Ron Gotcher wrote it). Perusal of claims in this article (written by Cristol) also show that Cristol denies Napalm was dropped on the Liberty which even the IDF admitted to. He "proves" Boston didn't write the affidavit by pointing out Boston claimed 34 sailors died when one was actually a civilian (reservist called up) and not a sailor so Boston should have said 33 sailors died. Also that as a lawyer he would not have included "hearsay" (Kidd). Cristol then goes on to claim "key crew members" gave testimony it was an accident which proves it was an accident but ignores that any crew member who claimed it wasn't was not permitted to testify. The next claim proving Boston is lying is that he heard testimony the attack was deliberate when no such testimony was in the report. He ignored that this is one of the claims in the affidavit, that these pages were redacted. All this is in only the first third of the article. The rest accuses all supporters of the deliberate attack "conspiracy" who have gone public of being holocaust deniers, terrorist supporters or Arab sympathisers. The more I research Cristol the less reliable he appears. Wayne (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Acctually you'll notice this section was started by Jayjg after or slightly before he reverted. Not that I am backing up his choice to revert the stuff in (I'm a fan of BRD), just that it is unfair to characterise him as having reverted without discussing, though yes he has yet to comment again. Cristol and Boston believe in opposite things...yes, that is true, and they engage in a less than happy relationship. I'm not sure this makes either of them unreliable. I would also point out he /was/ a lawyer (A navy lawyer infact) but is now a Federal Judge, I believe? And his book was endorsed by quite a few notables of at least the same par as Moorer. --Narson ~ Talk • 07:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that Jay Cristol is NOT a Federal judge. A Federal Judge is a much higher position appointed by the President of the U.S. and requires Senate confirmation. Cristol is not allowed to use that title. He is a judge appointed to the Federal Bench by a Circuit Judge. People assume that means he is a Federal Judge and he never contradicts them. As for endorsments...one of the flyleaf endorsments is by Vice Admiral Donald Engen. Engen died three years before Cristol wrote the book. What Engen wrote may well have been true at the time it was written but obviously does not refer to the book. Wayne (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is classical conspiracy theory group dynamics, accept without question any source of information that re-inforces the conspiracy theory but contrive arguments to discredit any that contradicts it; a self-reinforcing belief system if you will. Cristol is obviously a target for criticism as his book debunks many of the fringe conspiracy theories. Most of the criticism of the book is on conspiracy theory websites, I haven't found any objective criticism of the book elsewhere. What there is, is generally positive. Criticism based upon a fractious personal relationship does not discredit Cristol as a source for this article. If you want to have a definitive decision made either way, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. But you will be disappointed. Justin talk 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cristol is a target for criticism, from what i've seen so far, because he is an author who fits research around a preconcieved idea. It makes no difference if he is right or wrong, the fact he fabricates discredits any good work he does. You obviously have not read the critique of his doctoral disertation which became the book. Then there is the critism by real historians of his methods which as far as I'm aware are not on any conspiracy website. Wayne (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again the questions is where are your sources? Justin talk 12:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I found them and I'm not even computor literate. You can find them much faster than I could. Go for it. Wayne (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

This is simply ridiculous "I found them and I'm not even computor literate. You can find them much faster than I could", posted on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard here. Justin talk 14:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You just finished a diatribe about "conspiracy theory group dynamics" (BS for short) surrounding the liberty and now you are playing out what you are accusing others of. I have no trouble searching for references to support claims I do not agree with so why is it so much trouble for you? For me I would just change my view if I found a source that contradicted me but it seems your view is classic cognitive dissonance. These references are not going into the article and I'm not disputing using Cristol as a reference so why should I waste my time looking for references just to satify you when neither I nor the article needs them, I have dialup with a max speed of 28 kbps while I suspect you have broadband so if you dispute what I said about Cristol you can do it a little faster, feel free to prove me wrong. Wayne (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you've been trying to discredit Cristol as a source. I have looked for sources that would confirm what you say, didn't find any. I asked for your sources and you return with I'm not telling you. This is a recurring pattern, ask for sources to support an edit or assertion and butkiss is provied. Justin talk 09:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never tried to discredit Cristol as a source as you well know. I have never disputed that his sources are genuine, my position is that he has less weight because he ignores those he does not agree with or edits sources to support his position. His weight in the article should be reduced due to this bias. If you asked for a source for an edit then I'll happily supply one, but other than for that reason, I will not unless I have time to do so which I have already stated I don't have atm. Just because you don't want to find sources yourself is no reason to condemn others for not looking as those sources are easy to find. This is a recurring pattern, Wikipedia is supposed to be nuetral but you seem not interested in sources supporting such a position. Wayne (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may inerject here. For one you can see this article, [1], which discusses at length how Cristol has blatantly misrepresented the 13 "investigations" which he seems to cite as supporting his conclusions. Such gross misrepresentations certainly call into question both Cristol's methodology and motivations. As someone will certainly come back and question the veracity of this source, I suggest you go to the About Us section on that page. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, number one, is associated with a large number of very high standing individuals with extensive foreign service background as they point out, and is published in print with reprints on the net. Second as for their relationship to Israel, you will note that they openly confirm their support of UN resolutions with regard to the situation in the Middle East. This is hardly the position of a fringe conspiracy group. And finally, the author, as noted in the byline, has reached these findings as part of a post-graduate masters thesis, a scholarly endeavour. (And before anyone has a bird, I was posting under YELLABINA. Unfortunately I logged out and forgot my PW, with no e-mail entered so could retrieve. In order not to appear to be pulling something, I have created an new account this time w/e-mail under a variation. Call me a douss, it happens. If there is any doubt I invite you to check my ISP). YellabinaHabibi (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why we should be taking WRMEA as gospel truth here either....we should represent the sources, Cristol is a source that is supported and widely regarded, at least in the groups that deny the conspiracy theory. An essay written while undertaking your masters tends not to be authoritative....and more importantly he is an accountant. We have dealt with O'Keefe before on this. As an aside, you might want to note on your user page about your other/former account. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson first off thank you for that aside, I will do that it makes sense. I am not saying that WRMEA is gospel truth, but are they any less reputable than ADL? I did review the previous discussion of O'Keefe, and in the context being discussed here it seems that that (previous OR, NPOV...) discussion of it really isn't fitting, or complete. Correct me if I am wrong, but Jayg was objecting to citing O'keefe in the body of the article, or using him as a reference to a citation in the article. The issue here is are there criticisms of Cristol on the net that do not stem from radical consipiracy groups, and for that matter not self published. As for WRMEA being gospel, I am not implying that anyone has Gospel in this issue here, the discussions on all topics kind of prove that. ;-) The point is WRMEA has a directorship and history with some pretty credible people on it who control editorial policy. If they printed his article, they did so in light of that policy. As a previous editor pointed out, the fact that the guy was or may still be a CPA is really not of interest, everyone started somewhere. Einstein was a patent clerk, it did not negate his papers at the time. I am not saying O'Keefe is Einstein, just pointing out the weakeness of the argument by analogy. It would seem from some discussions on this section that ADL, who has a very clear editorial policy in one regard is given great latitude, or is at least not dismissed out of hand. In the interest of fairness I submit that an article by O'Keefe, published by a third party who is not a conspiracy group and explicitly claims adherence to and support of UN policies affecting the Middle East and Israel in particular should not be branded as fringe or necessisarily unreliable, or biased against one particular nation in that region. Hence it seems to me a reasonable source of criticism of Cristol. YellabinaHabibi (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that is more an issue for an article on A J Cristol, under a header labelled 'Criticisms'? :) --Narson ~ Talk • 19:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs#Criticism and personally I don't see ADL as a reliable source. Justin talk 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that link Justin. But CAMERA, are you kidding?? I am not trying to belabour the point, but even Wikipedia says their editors booted them for conspiracy amongst these hallowed electronic pages. That organization is a reliable critic of WRMEA? If they can criticize WRMEA, then by all means it would seem that WRMEA is more than a reliable source for critcizing Cristol - fair play and all that. Come on, I am lauging here so hard I can barely type. I will have to call my friends at The Middle East Agency and have them give some input to refute them I guess. LOL. I just had to respond Justin, Narson is right this really belongs elsewhere first. YellabinaHabibi (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Right so when I say its about as reliable as the ADL you would concur in that? I point to a wiki article, which includes multiple criticisms and you pick out only one. I regard as unreliable any partisan source and that includes both ADL and WRMEA. I wouldn't describe either as a reliable critic of the other, since neither are reliable. Justin talk 08:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the author of the critism and found that Borne who wrote articles critical of Cristol's dissertation in WRMEA, the Liberty website and self published did his doctoral dissertation on the Liberty. Doesn't that make these articles as reliable a source as Cristols? Wayne (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Where was his doctoral dissertation published? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin I am pointing to a double standard here. You say that neither source is a reliable critic of the other. Yet clearly WIKI includes CAMRERA as a critic of WRMEA, and I was pointed to that reference by you in regard to my comments on the reliablity of WRMEA. The CAMERA page in turn includes a pretty scathing entry about their biased activities here. I chose that one reference in that "criticism" of WRMEA because it was so glaring, and indeed the first one shown in that section of the page on WRMEA. The reference to ADL was spurred to be honest because accusations of me trying to "shoehorn" things into this article was still lingering in my mind. It seems there is some great effort to include ADL references here, which appears to me to be shoehorning. If you would like to discuss the relative merits of ADL vs. WRMEA I would be happy to oblige as an exercise, but we would probably wind up filling many pages here unnecessarily, perhaps elsewhere. Can we then remove CAMERA as a source of critism of WRMEA? Your input is requested as I would then like to go to that page and do so with justification and your support. YellabinaHabibi (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But not by me. Personally I wouldn't include either, however, wikipedia allows you to do so. You can quote what CAMERA says about WRMEA and what WRMEA says about CAMERA because you are reporting what that source said. I don't think a debate about the relative merits of either organisation would be of value, since both are partisan. You'll also note that I didn't support the use of the ADL quote.

And in response to Wayne, no it doesn't when he choses to publish them via a partisan source. And where was his doctoral thesis published? Sources, sources, sources. How come you never provide sources??????? Justin talk 09:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Justin, if I gave the impression that I thought you were in favor of ADL references, I apologize as that was not my intent. I am only trying to put perspective on the use of possibly biased sources within WIKI. CAMERA, a biased source, can be cited against WRMEA, and is so in WIKI even though WIKI itself has problems with them. WRMEA can be cited against CAMERA, though I don't know that they are. But WRMEA can not be cited against Cristol because they are biased, I must assume that was the purpose of your reference to that criticism of WRMEA after my exchange with Narson? If Wiki had a page on Cristol I would add a criticism there based on WRMEA in keeping with your line of logic and Narson's suggestion. But I haven't found one (A Jay Cristol Page or one specifically for his book), and frankly, creating one I think elevates him above his station and is not a project that I really want to undertake. In the disputed points area of this article and elsewhere there is rebuttal to various references (and this is in itself an intersting POV issue. Citing a critism, then allowing other sources have the last word on that criticm, leaves a lingering impression to the reader that last word is weighty). So it would not be out of line to add some rebuttal to Cristol with regard to his claims on this whole morass. WRMEA is said to be biased. 205.238.242.233 (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He did the same as Cristol, published his dissertation as a book. He did his thesis at New York University and is an American History professor at Baruch College and Pace University. The book is called "The USS LIBERTY, Dissenting History vs. Official History, an historical study of the incident" published by New York University. The book is available from bookshops but only available online via those partisan sources. Wayne (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was of course referring to WRMEA as well you know. Justin talk 15:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Published by Reconsideration Press, not and the NY University, can't comment on the publishers as can't find any details on them. More later Justin talk 15:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assumed NYU because that was what Google Books said. I just had a quick look and it seems the book may be self published but don't quote me on that. However my point is that even if a site like WRMEA is arguably partisan, if the article is written by or a direct quote of Borne then it should be admissable as it is his area of expertise. Cristol likewise is published by the ADL, JVL and CAMERA, all indisputably partisan, and they are (excluding instances where they are used to cite official documents) used eight times in the article as references. Shouldn't Borne recieve similar weight to Cristol? Wayne (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not even for sale on Amazon, and Amazon sells everything. Cristol is published by Potomac Books, a publisher that specializes in exactly this kind of material. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Publishing details

The USS Liberty: Dissenting History Vs. Official History By John E Borne Published by Reconsideration Press, 1996

The USS Liberty: Dissenting History Vs. Official History By John E. Borne Published by New York University, Graduate School of Arts and Science, 1993

No ISBN??? And very little information on the web. I assume the NYU publication is the doctoral thesis not a book publication? Justin talk 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Borne's USS Liberty website: http://www.logogo.net/liberty.htm

His email address is listed; thus, likely he will answer any inquiry about his thesis, book and publishers.Ken (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friendly Fire Example

I've done some research into the claim that the IDF attacked an armoured column the day before. There is no IDF record of it. A. Jay Cristol goes into detail on friendly fire attacks to explain the attack on the Liberty in his article "The USS Liberty and the Role of Intelligence" yet does not mention the one in this article. CAMERA, a partisan source, also does not mention it although it does mention the "Turkestan" attack in explaining the attack on the Liberty as friendly fire. A couple of other sources also mention the "Turkestan" but not the armoured column in regards to the Liberty. For example McNamara talks about it during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee enquiry in 1967 as does Cristols book on Pg 156. It seems someone made up the armoured column claim and a few sources picked it up. I've replaced the current claim with the Turkestan incident as this is the one actually linked with the Liberty. Wayne (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A perfectly valid source was found for that claim backed up by a secondary source, Hirsh Goodman and Ze'ev Schiff, “The Attack on the Liberty,” Atlantic Monthly, (September 1984), I've therefore restored it. Relevant policy is WP:V. Dismissing sources as "bullshit" is unacceptable, if I see a repeat of this I will raise this issue at AN/I again. Justin talk 10:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The last AN/I report on this subject smeared some editors as likely antisemitic - are you proposing doing the same thing again?

I have an RS that says Dayan told the US he would attack the Liberty if it did not withdraw - you seem to be saying it would be perfectly proper to put that in.

Perhaps more significantly, we have a de-coded cable warning that Secretary of State Dean Rusk had told NATO Secretary General Manlio Brosio and "several foreign ministers" (from State Department telegram 20317 of 17 June 1967) in Luxembourg "some of the truth about the attack on the Liberty" (from the RS). That would seem to be better referenced than your inclusion - can I put that in? PR^talk 13:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did no such thing and clarified my statement to make that plain. Justin talk 13:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to be that base, we might ask you, PR, whether you intend to issue more childish legal threats that you will be forced to recant in order to avoid more blocks? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If a primary source cannot be found to validate a factual claim or statement made by a secondary source, then the factual claim cannot be verified. Of course, validating a claim's primary source has nothing to do with the claim's veracity -- verifiability, not truth is the objective here. So, what was the primary source for the factual claim made by Hirsh Goodman and Ze'ev Schiff?Ken (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement you reverted is the example given by various parties that took part in the investigations and is also given by CAMERA and Cristol. The edit you restored, while given by some partisan sources, is not mentioned by CAMERA or Cristol which would be expected if they knew of it. The fact that the Atlantic Monthly went into great detail for the other friendly fire incidents it mentions but gave no detail at all for the armoured column claim is suspicious in itself not to mention that the IDF have no record of the incident that I can find. I gave the facts so it could be argued here civilly if anyone disputes them and if you think the Jewish Virtual Library making a suspect claim is more reliable in regards to this issue than an official Liberty investigation where the Turkestan was THE example used then you need to explain why we should use the JVL. Wayne (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that both Schiff and the JVL are secondary sources with no primary source available in support. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a primary source that Cristol (a secondary source) references in his book for this incident so it should take precedence. You can't pick an edit just because you like it best. You go with the one supported. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You added a {{fact}} tag, a source was provided. The claim in the source references a secondary source to confirm it. Your own research confirms that that claim is in the article cited. Your only reason for removing it is purely speculation on your part, i.e. WP:OR, which is not allowed according to Wikipedia policies.

Secondly you're seeking to overturn a long established text, it is incumbent on the person proposing the new edit to convince editors that the edit is appropriate. Have you done that, no, it was challenged and you just steam rollered it back in. It isn't a question of picking an edit I like best, though that is exactly what you're doing.

If you wish to add additional text on an incident used as an example by Cristol, fine go ahead I won't remove it, but don't change the established consensus text without a consensus to do so. Justin talk 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pure reliance on secondary sources without apparent efforts at researching secondary sources' reliability (i.e., verifying secondary sources' primary sources, on any given point) leads to article content quality being somewhere between Yellow Journalism and a high-school book report. Perhaps I expect too much for the quality and verifiability of wiki articles -- especially ones of this nature.Ken (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The secondary source verifies the event happened, I believe, rather than requiring primary to support secondary. I mean, if we find a newspaper obitury but no direct account of the person being dead, that doesn't make the obitury, prima facie, untrue. Only if we found direct evidence to the contrary could we, as editors, decide the evidence is not suitable, IMO. This does mean that secondary sources like this do have a 'golden bullet' because it is difficult to prove a negative. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That it was long established text is irrelevant as, I believe, it had been questioned in the past but no one had bothered researching to find if it was reliable. I provided more than enough evidence to determine that the new edit is appropriate and so far there is only one editor contesting who has provided no evidence in support of their position on the armoured column claim. Wayne (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A secondary source should always verify factual claims, and cite its primary sources; but, of course, this doesn't always happen -- and it appears that this is perfectly okay in Wikiland.

American humorist Mark Twain once sent an open letter from London to the American press when it was reported in America that he had died while on a trip to London. A famous quote came from the letter: "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." Clearly, newspaper editors did not verify that a death certificate (primary source) existed before printing Twain's obituary. It turned out that the editors depended on hearsay, not a verifiable source for their factual claim. Of course, without citing their source, it could only be assumed that the editors consulted a primary source for their claim -- an obviously bad assumption.

As we know, WP doesn't tolerate contributors stating factual claims without citing verifiable sources. Thus, it seems very odd that WP tolerates citing sources that don't cite their sources for factual claims.Ken (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Narson. The case is not exactly proving a negative because the section is titled Israel stated that the attack was not deliberate using the following arguments:. Israel did not use the example of the armoured column, Schiff and the JVL did which brings into question the claim of reliability. Israel did use the example of the Russian freighter. I looked at a lot of sources and found many Israeli friendly fire incidents (76 in Lebanon alone in a single report) with most incidents having no materiel damage and no one hurt yet can find no report of the armoured column in either official IDF reports or unofficial sources. I'm not saying one does not exist somewhere because it may not be online but for verifiability we must assume for now that it does not. Wayne (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The Atlantic Monthly, a reliable source, is the source for this claim - that's all we need. Your personal research attempting to validate a claim made by a reliable source is an exercise in futility - original research is not allowed on this project, nor is it needed when we can easily ascertain that the claim was made in a reliable source. NoCal100 (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

NoCal is exactly right. Please review WP:V and WP:NOR Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you two actually read what anyone posts or check the edits or do you just shoot down anything you don't like? I left the unverifiable claim which Israel did not use in and added the example that Israel actually used alongside it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I did research not original research. I found secondary sources citing a primary source which I also found. The original claim was supported by a tertiary source citing a secondary source who in turn cited nothing!!!! Which should be given greater weight? It's a no brainer. Wayne (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you removed the citation to the JVL yet again.See here for evidence. In fact, you've reverted 5 times now; please revert yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Make that 6 times, since he reverted again. I've restored the text back to the last consensus version with a cite attached to the edit that was questioned. A compromise was offered Wayne to allow you to put your edit in addition to the current text. Continuing with WP:OR and removing that source was not acceptable behaviour. Justin talk 08:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wayne seems to have had a misunderstanding of the 3RR rule, though now I think it has been clarified to him, so, lets move on from that assuming the edit war is over for 24 hours. Right, first of all just to clarify, I don't see Wayne removing the source in the last few edit, merely adding a RS tag to it. It would be best if we could cite the original document and provide the Jewish Virtual Library as a net link for that to back up the assertion that is what the source says. We do need to use cite templates more on the page. The additional stuff by Wayne I don't think is necessarily bad, the inclusion of the US attacking Soviet ships is the kind of quirky history I enjoy (Pot and Kettle!), but yes, on the revert of the addition discussion without edit wars should have been the route chosen by Wayne. I do think we should all on this page read up on and use the Bold, Revert and Discuss method, it would keep everyone's blood pressure down. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Indentation is getting too extreme. As regards the JVL, it was a source confirming the edit, it was backed up by a secondary source. Wayne has accessed the secondary source and confirmed what the JVL said. He then goes on to decide for no good reason that isn't enough, because of his own research and edit wars to remove it. Adding a RS tag is simply being pointy and abusing wiki processes for no good reason. What really irked me was a compromise was offered that would have allowed Wayne to include his example in additon to the current text and he chose to fling that back in people's faces. Nevertheless I still don't have any objection to it being included in the article. As regards discussion, fine, I've never had a problem with that but can we just cut out the emotional hyperbole and accusations of censorship crap. Justin talk 09:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I never accused anyone of censorship. Secondly, I twice made the edit you suggested as a compromise and it got me banned for 3RR so how is that "flinging that back in people's faces". Adding the RS tag was not "point". We had already discussed JVL earlier as being no more reliable than WRMEA and to be careful in their usage. I specifically asked for the JVL reference to be replaced with the Atlantic Monthly reference. I was the one to first bring up discussion of the edit so I wasn't forcing it on anyone. The only reason there was an edit war at all was because word got out and uninvolved editors came to help prevent the edit. This could have been resolved quite peacefully if WP would ban network editing. Wayne (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The censorship remark was not directed at you, rather more of a general comment for other contributors who do, frequently. Another thing I'm starting to find intensely irritating is repeatedly having comments misconstrued and I suspect that is done quite deliberately.

Where did you ask for the JVL reference to be replaced? I can't see that anywhere. If you want to change the reference to the Atlantic Monthly article I've no objections. Adding the RS tag was pointy, the JVL reference was of course backed up by a secondary source, you confirmed it yourself so marking it as unreliable was simply disrupting the article to make a point; the very definition of WP:POINT.

What got you blocked and your edit reverted Wayne was deliberately removing that reference and edit warring to keep it out. The only reason there was an edit war was because you chose to indulge in one. This can be resolved quite peacefully if you follow the bold, revert, discuss model for article contribution. Justin talk 13:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure of why you think there was a network involved here, Wayne? NoCal has been active on the article before I believe, likely he has it watchlisted. I understand that you misunderstood 3RR and while I wouldn't have asked for a block, I'm not sure blaming others for the block is the right way forward. Just to echo justin's point, I am all for citing the Atlantic Monthly directly. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked for the Atlantic Monthly reference here. Justin says I was blocked for edit warring to keep the JVL reference out yet the fact that my last revert left it in was ignored as was my acceptance of the compromise Justin himself suggested. To me this looks like I was blocked in violation of the spirit of the 3RR rule as I had accepted the offers of compromise and recieved no warnings that I was doing anything wrong until after my last edit. Maybe network is the wrong term for other editors helping out, but I point out that NoCal has never before made an edit to this article (under that username) so you can see why I was suspicious. Wayne (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw the 3RR violation and saw Jayjg had warned you and didn't think it needed to go any further, however someone reported you and it got a block. It isn't that terrible a thing to have 24 hours away from an article that has you incensed. I was sure NoCal had edited the page or the talk page before, as the name seems familiar to me (And I don't usually hang around near east articles), though I can't see him in recent history. Though, making good faith assumptions, it looks like he put in a source and reverted to keep that source in. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Wayne, you say you asked for the Atlantic reference in this edit summary here but it isn't clear that was your intention. Why did you simply revert? You could easily have edited in the Atlantic reference and put your own text in. The best way to have dealt with this was to take the issue to the talk page not to revert. To be honest Wayne I think that 3RR report was made because this isn't the first time you've sparked an edit war to push an edit is it? Now it appears you have a consensus to do so, why don't we put all the past disagreements in the past and work on improving the article instead of bickering. By way of help you can find citation templates here to put in just about any kind of reference. Justin talk 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know. I have never been blocked before for anything, I don't think I've even had a 3RR that had been overlooked. I always use talk instead of taking part in an edit war however this time I got hot under the collar because no one would give a reason for excluding the edit but kept reverting it anyway. Wayne (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a temptation to make a poor joke about you censoring the claims of censorship. But in all seriousness, the allegations do get on my tits and certainly arn't compatable with wikipolicy. All they do is destroy any good faith that might remain in an attempt for one 'side' to try and scrabble for some moral high ground when we are on an amoral mission. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Narson above that the rusian freighter attack is a good detail to add to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objected to the addition, so I've added it back and started to tidy the sources. Would be better with a cite template but I was in a rush. Justin talk 15:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain to me how the U.S. Airforce attack on Soviet freighter Turkestan relates to the USS Liberty incident? Primary and secondary sources make clear that the attack was initially claimed as purely a consequence of collateral damage (i.e., not an intentional attack due to mistaken identity); and then upon investigation, it was found that the attack was deliberate. The responsible commander was court marshaled, found guilty and penalized. How is this similar to the USS Liberty attack?Ken (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually as I recall, US planes were fired upon and retaliated hitting the Turkestan, their commander then decided to cover it up by destroying their gun camera film. The enquiry found their response was perfectly acceptable but destroying the gun camera film which had evidence they were being attacked had led the airforce into disrepute. He was penalised for destroying the gun camera film not for the attack. Chuck Yeager has details in his book as he led the court martial. Justin talk 17:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, as there isn't a consensus to include it as I thought I self-reverted. Justin talk 17:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Ken. The Turkestan is the actual incident used by Israel as an example of friendly fire as it occured several days before the Liberty attack. It was first brought up in the 1967 Senate Foreign Relations Committee enquiry and is the example cited by Israeli sources including Cristol in his book. The pilots were found not guilty and while the commander was court marshalled and fined $600 (for disobeying a Presidential order not for destroying the film), the conviction was set aside a few weeks later. Wayne (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's editorial note 188 from U.S. Department of State about the Turkestan matter (see http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/v/13149.htm):

"On June 2, 1967, U.S. aircraft attacked an anti-aircraft battery at Cam Pha, 50 miles north of Haiphong in North Vietnam. Some of the ordnance struck the Soviet freighter Turkestan, which had been moored near Cam Pha. Damage to the ship was extensive and one crew member died. The Soviet Union issued an immediate protest of the incident which it termed "a crying violation of the freedom of navigation, an act of banditry which may have far-reaching consequences." On June 3 the U.S. Government responded that the attacks by two flights of aircraft had taken place but "only against legitimate military targets" and that it was North Vietnamese anti-aircraft fire which had struck the Soviet vessel. An apology from the U.S. Government was transmitted for delivery to the Soviet Government in telegram 207926 to Moscow, June 3. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27 VIET S) After further investigation, a note delivered to the Soviet Embassy in Washington on June 20 acknowledged that a third flight of American planes had struck the ship."

The fact that Cristol used this incident to somehow draw a parallel with the USS Liberty attack seems obtuse. Other than a ship being attacked by aircraft, the circumstances have little to nothing else in common.Ken (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

McNamara was the first to bring it up as an example of friendly fire and Cristol probably used it because it was in the official records of the Liberty investigations and he knew of no other similar examples. Also Cristol points out that the Turkestan was flying the Russian flag and had a prominent hammer and sickle painted on it's smokestack which made it seem the attack was deliberate. The History Channel documentary on the Liberty also used this as an example (instead of the one about the armoured column) and at least two major books on the Liberty incident mention it as well as a mention in the section on the Arab Israeli War in the book "American Naval History" (and none of them mention the armoured column). Wayne (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The following is not relevant here but may be of use in another article and you may find it interesting history. It's possible that the attack on Cam Pha AAA may be disinformation to "prove" the Turkestan was an accident as there was an existing Presidential order not to attack Cam Pha under any circumstances. The U.S initially denied the attack then later stated the ship was attacked because it fired on the aircraft. Eventually they gave the current story. Colonel Jacksel Broughton, who ordered the attack, stated the target was the rail line outside the harbour which was a permitted target. Major's Tolman and Ferguson (the pilots) testified they were attacking the rail line when AAA opened up and Tolmer turned to take it out but the ship was in between them and the AAA. Broughton, Tolmer and Ferguson were court marshalled for "conspiracy against the U.S. government" (for violating the Presidential order) but Broughton claimed it was he who destroyed the gun camera film so the pilots were found not guilty. Strange as it seems, if the film had not been destroyed both pilots would have been found guilty as they were charged with the attack itself, the film destruction was another charge of "destruction of government property" and the original conspiracy charge was not proceeded with. Broughton was court marshalled and results forwarded to the Russians but he appealed his conviction, and the court-martial was voided after which he retired. In the entire history of the United States only one other officer had ever had a court martial voided, Brigadier General William Marshall, who was court marshalled in 1925 and had the conviction voided by Congress in 1946. Broughton later wrote a book about his service in Vietnam including the Turkestan incident and since 1997, a copy of this book is given by the Air Force to every officer when they are promoted to captain. President Johnson had a scheduled Summit meeting with Soviet Premier Kosygin several weeks after the attack which was only one of several on Soviet targets in North Vietnam that month. For example, ten Soviet MIGs were destroyed at the Kep airfield a week after the Turkestan incident. It was forbidden by Presidential order to attack any MIG that had it's landing gear down but no one was court marshalled for that incident because the Russians didn't protest as they did for the ship which was obviously civilian. You can see why some believe the attack on the ship itself was deliberate and an attempt to put pressure on Kosygin. Wayne (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, your description -- with the addition of citations -- of the Turkenstan incident sounds like a good start for a Wiki article.Ken (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, the circumstances for the two attacks were not similar. Frankly, this business of citing various friendly fire incidences as a means to explain or excuse the Liberty attack is fought with problems. Unless one can find a friendly fire incident with very similar circumstances, it's an apple-to-oranges comparison exercise that proves nothing.Ken (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and that could be why the possibly fictitious armoured column attack claim is used --- because the turkestan was not similar enough. Hirsh Goodman in his article on the liberty in the Atlantic Monthly, the de-facto primary source of the armoured column claim and the original source for all other secondary sources, additionally cites the USS Stark (believed to be a deliberate attack disguised as friendly fire) and Iran Air Flight 655 (a similar friendly fire but not a good one to bolster Israel's case) as examples, so should not those also be in the article? Why single out the only example that has no primary source in support? The most NPOV way to put the arguement would be to say that friendly fire incidents happen and not mention any examples at all because there are problems with them all. Wayne (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

C'mon guys an incident of friendly fire against its own forces in the same war, that has been cited as an example in texts clearly related to the USS Liberty Incident is obviously of relevance. Its properly cited, its a reliable source, it belongs in the article. Justin talk 09:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem i have is that Goodman is the only source for the incident. All other sources cite Goodman. The IDF, who even recorded near miss friendly fire incidents, has no record of it that I can find. Putting in a suspect example doesn't help Israel's case. Everyone knows what friendly fire is and a basic claim of friendly fire with no examples would have readers nodding and saying "yep, that happens".

Look it satisfies WP:V, are you now claiming this isn't a reliable source? Its clearly of relevance and I don't understand why you're trying to have it expunged from the article. Trying to argue its removal by doubting the veracity of the claim is WP:OR territory and doesn't belong on a wikipedia article. What evidence do you have its a suspect claim? Justin talk 16:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's what wiki says about reliable sources(WP:RS): "[Reliable] sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article..." In what manner does the source for the armored column attack support its claim?Ken (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard then. It directly supports the information in the article, the article exactly reflects what the source says. Justin talk 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It directly supports that the secondary source made an unsupported claim. It does not magically elevated the claim to established fact. Thus, to knowingly represent the unsupported claim in the context of established fact is misleading. To avoid this, I suggest applying a bit of qualifying language; e.g., xyz claims that...Ken (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of the incident by anyone before 1984. All the secondary sources cite the same primary source (Goodman's 1984 article). The only incident that resembles the claim was an Israeli tank destroyed by friendly fire near the Suez Canal on the night of June 8th which is no where near Jenin where Goodman claimed it happened. Or possibly we may include an earlier friendly fire incident also near the Suez where an IDF jeep attacked an Israeli armored column that had fired upon them, both parties were behind enemy lines and though the other were Egyptians. Call it OR but one can't help but question Goodman's claim. Maybe this is one of the edits where WP:V doesn't work as it should. Wayne (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So, it was Goodman, the apparent originator, who did not cite a source for the claim?Ken (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no need for a qualifier, wikipedia reflects what the source said. WP:OR precludes you using speculation to criticise a source or edit, which is exactly what you're doing. Neither of you have produced one iota of evidence to discredit that source. Justin talk 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Justin, What speculation or original thought are you referring to? How does observing and reporting a prima facie fact (i.e., a secondary source's factal claim is not cited) constitute original research or original thought?Ken (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Outdent
I can not find a single secondary source that does not cite Goodman's article for the claim and strangely none actually quote from the article itself but all add post 1984 friendly fire incidents to it. This one from the Jewish Virtual library written in 2003 is typical:

"Accidents caused by “friendly fire” are common in wartime. In 1988, the U.S. Navy mistakenly downed an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians. During the Gulf War, 35 of the 148 Americans who died in battle were killed by “friendly fire.” In April 1994, two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters with large U.S. flags painted on each side were shot down by U.S. Air Force F-15s on a clear day in the “no fly” zone of Iraq, killing 26 people. In April 2002, an American F-16 dropped a bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. In fact, the day before the Liberty was attacked, Israeli pilots accidentally bombed one of their own armored columns (Hirsh Goodman and Ze'ev Schiff, "The Attack on the Liberty," Atlantic Monthly, September 1984)."

The Atlantic Monthly is a pay per view for past articles. I tried to read the article anyway but it was never archived as AM state that not all document formats were archived. To find if Goodman and Schiff cited the claim you will need to find a hard copy in a library. I doubt they did cite the source they got it from or other sources would have gone to the original (especially since critics maintain the entire Atlantic Monthly article is propaganda). The original would carry more weight as it would have more detail and avoids the problem of the incident's first mention being 17 years after the event. The omission of detail is even more problematic as one of the author's, Schiff, is an expert in Israeli military history. The sentence that probably did come from the Atlantic Monthly appears almost to be an afterthought when it should have been the primary example, as it is in the WP article, had it had enough detail to confirm it's authenticity. Several secondary sources also add "near Jenin" to the end of the sentence and, as they cite the same source, we have to assume it was in the original. Wayne (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, above at 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC) you indicated that you'd read this article and confirmed the presence of this claim. Criticism by speculation is not acceptable. And in answer to Ken you are speculating you have no source to contradict the claim made. AGAIN WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE. We have reams of navel gazing but little in the way of hard facts. Justin talk 16:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Justin, at this point, I have not seen or read the Atlantic Monthly article; so, I'm not yet clear to what extent, if any, that Goodman's factual claim was cited or verified via a primary source. One thing for certain, based on Wayne's recent post, it appears that we all need to get our hands on a copy of the Goodman article to move this discussion beyond "navel gazing" and second-guessing.Ken (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I located a relative close library that has a copy of the 9/84 AM. Within a few days, I'll go there to have a look, and report my findings here. Meanwhile, I found lots of stuff on the net about tank battles being fought near Jenin, and claims that the IAF saved-the-day by attacking Jordanian tanks that were out-maneuvering IDF tanks. Thus, it's not beyond belief that the IAF hit IDF tanks by mistake. After all, from the air, relatively small tanks likely appear extremely similar to each other -- not like the easy-to-see differences between a large, well-marked cargo-type ship and a destroyer or other combat-type ship.Ken (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said I'd read the article. I was commenting on the lack of detail in the secondary sources and assuming these secondary sources were quoting the Atlantic Monthly verbatim which I have since found none do, which means WP:REDFLAG should apply. If Goodman/Schiff do not cite a primary source then WP:REDFLAG definately applies. Instead of accusing editors of "naval gazing" why don't you make the effort to verify the source? Reply to Ken: I found several references to Israeli tanks having a high breakdown rate in the Sinai. One account I recently read recorded an IDF column having lost most of it's tanks to breakdowns in the west Sinai passes, and of the 9 tanks remaining 4 were being towed into battle due to running out of fuel. The retreating Egyptians had abandoned their tanks so the IDF took over 4 of the Egyptian tanks to replace their own that had no fuel (Israel captured 320 abandoned Egyptian tanks) and draped Israeli flags over the turrets so they would not be attacked by their own air force. Despite this one was and destroyed. It was an interesting article. Wayne (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your post at 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC) certainly seems to imply you had. All I've seen is speculation about your own WP:OR to try and discredit a claim, navel gazing is all that is. Justin talk 10:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what it is. Ken said he will check the original at the library, so if Goodman/Schiff did not cite their primary source it has to be deleted from here. If they did cite one then I have no problem with it staying even if that source is not readily available. We will know soon. Wayne (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. We don't disqualify newspaper reports if the authors do not "cite their primary sources", yet they are considered reliable sources. The Atlantic Monthly, and the authors, are reliable sources, period. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's my library visit report. The article (The Attack on the Liberty, by Goodman and Schiff) begins on page 78 of the September, 1984 issue of The Atlantic (AKA: The Atlantic Monthly) magazine. Within the article, in the middle of the second column on page 78, the following appears:

"Mistakes are common in war. Indeed, just the day before the attack on the Liberty, Israeli aircraft had bombed an Israeli armored column south of the West Bank town of Jennin; on November 3, 1956, Israeli war planes mistakenly attacked a British ship (Britain and France were allies of Israel in the Sinai Campaign) in the Red Sea; in the June, 1982, war in Lebanon more than twenty Israeli servicemen were killed by Israeli Phantom Jets in the eastern sector when their tanks were mistakenly identified as Syrian. During the battle in Grenada, American jets mistakenly bombed a mental hospital. Such tragic accidents have happened to every army in the history of modern war."

No citations or bibliography of any type appears anywhere within or for the article.Ken (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that this reliable source did indeed say that. You have effectively removed any grounds for deleting the information from the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

WP:RS

Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made

All you've done is confirm that a reliable, third-party published source confirms the fact as reported in the Wikipedia article. The fact as reported in the source is verified, you have not generated an excuse to remove it. Justin talk 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The factual claim itself (i.e., "the fact") was neither confirmed or denied. The Goodman and Schiff (GS) article made an unsupported factual claim; therefore, "the fact" is purported; i.e., perhaps factual, but not verified as such. Thus, to be intellectually honest, one should present the factual claim in the context of being a purported fact stated by GS.

During a brief review, I found nothing in WP policies that explicitly states secondary source's must contain citations or otherwise support their factual claims; albeit, this may be inferred from WP:RS policy. The paramount concern for WP articles seems to be that they cite reliable secondary (occasionally primary) sources and truly represent statements or information taken from these sources -- regardless of the ultimate verifiability (truthfulness) of the source's statements themselves. Given this interpretation of WP policies, I'd say that anything a reliable source states should be allowed -- assuming it's presented in an intellectually honest fashion.

The obvious conundrum here is: How can one deem a source reliable when it contains unverifiable factual claims? After all, the essential attributes of a reliable source are fact-checking and accuracy. So, how can one be assured (i.e., know the reliability) of a source's fact-checking and accuracy when the source provides no citations or references for factual claims?Ken (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The status of the article as a reliable source devolves primarily from the reliability of The Atlantic Monthly, and secondarily from its authors. Newspapers and newsmagazines rarely, if ever, provide citations or references for factual claims. Does that mean they are all disqualified as reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if I don't see primary sources cited in some manner, I'm inclined to not blindly accept factual or other claims -- regardless of the publication's reputation. Often, in reputable newspapers and magazines you will not find citations per se, but you'll see in-line source references. Of course, newspapers and magazines are deadline driven and extremely cost constrained; thus, there is a limit to the amount of fact-checking that takes place. Even a newspaper as reputable as the New York Times prints retractions on a regular basis. In short, there is no such thing as a 100% reliable publication. Thus, simply because a factual claim is printed in a "reliable source", it does not guarantee that it was fact-checked. In short, don't trust everything you read -- especially when it contains no source references.Ken (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one claims that reputable newspapers or magazines are all 100% accurate. However, for the purposes of Wikipedia we consider them all to be reliable sources. There are better sources than newspapers and magazines (e.g. a respected historian published by an university press), and if we find one that explicitly contradicts the article in The Atlantic Monthly, then we would prefer it. Failing that, though, we don't really have any grounds to exclude this material. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, it appears that the statement itself is fully within WP policy and, thus, it should be allowed as a purported (i.e., unverifiable) factual claim by Goodman and Schiff.

By the way, the article now states: "Israel stated that the attack was not deliberate using the following arguments: 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.[23]" As we now know, this was not stated by the Government of Israel, it was stated by Goodman and Schiff, and others who restated it in their works. Also, exactly how does an "unintentional mistake" differ from an ordinary mistake? In short, a bit of editing work need to be performed to achieve accuracy and improve grammar.Ken (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for going the extra mile Ken. I've rewritten the text to avoid problems with accuracy, OR etc. Hopefully we can now put this arguement to bed. Wayne (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten to conform with MOS and to remove POV. Justin talk 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a rewrite that I believe is truly NPOV, intellectually honest and side-steps the fact that we are unable to verify the Goodman and Schiff claim:

The following arguments, found in Israeli Defense Force reports and other sources, were published to support that the attack was due to mistaken identity:

• "Mistakes are common in war. Indeed, just the day before the attack on the Liberty, Israeli aircraft had bombed an Israeli armored column south of the West Bank town of Jenin..."[insert Goodman and Schiff cite here]

Using a direct quote instead of paraphrasing or synthesizing Goodman and Schiff makes the prime source of the statement abundantly clear, via the citation. Now, all that remains is to clean-up the other five arguments by removing POV and OR stuff, fix grammar problems and provide citations, and this part of the article will be greatly improved. (By the way, the sic for "Jenin" in my library research quote of Goodman and Schiff was my error, not theirs.) Ken (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

unindent

What exactly is wrong with the current version? Justin talk 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The introductory statement for the list of arguments ("The position that the attack was not deliberate is supported by the following arguments:") has three fundamental problems: a) the position is that the attack itself was deliberate, but against the wrong target due mistaken identity; b) strongly implying that the arguments truly support "the position" is POV; and c) it fails to provide the reader an overview of the sources for the arguments. As an introductory statement, it should provide readers with an unambiguously worded, unbiased explanation for the list of arguments.

The much discussed first point ("Accidents caused by friendly fire are common in wartime. The day before the attack on the Liberty, Israeli aircraft had bombed an Israeli armored column south of the West Bank town of Jenin, demonstrating unintentional mistakes do happen, where the IAF had even attacked Israel's own forces.") also has problems. To begin, the IDF claim is that the attack was due to mistake, not accident. Goodman and Schiff apparently understood the difference in the meaning of the words "mistake" and "accident", and worded their statement correctly. Next, the phrase "unintentional mistakes" is redundant wording. Mistakes are unintentional wrongful acts; thus, the phrase effectively says: "unintentional unintentional wrongful acts". Finally, the phrase, "where the IAF had even attacked Israel's own forces", is redundant and grammatically awkward. No need to awkwardly state what has already been stated; i.e., the statement doesn't need to summarize itself. The simple solution, as I stated previously, is to quote Goodman and Schiff directly. It overcomes all of the problems mentioned above; and as I stated before, it effectively side-steps the inability to verify the factual claim expressed in the Goodman and Schiff quote.Ken (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Goodman and Schiff carefully used the word "mistake" throughout their paragraph until the last statement when they slipped and characterized the mistakes as being "tragic accidents". Mistakes can lead to accidents (e.g., mistaking a red light for a green light), but mistakes are not accidents.Ken (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon second reading, I believe they were eluding to the unintented results of the mistakes they cited. In which case, their usage of the word "accidents" makes sense.Ken (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with "found in Israeli Defense Force reports and other sources" as it implies by default (because the IDF does record such incidents) that that incident was in IDF reports which it is not. How about "found in official reports and other sources"? Wayne (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the other arguements we can probably delete numbers three and four, which are just two different ways of saying the same thing anyway. That the aircrafts weapons were "inadequate" is irrelevant as it was all they had available that were fully armed and already airborne. IDF records say they diverted the aircraft already airborne that had not yet begun their attack on the Mitla Pass. That it was "inadequate" must have been known when they were sent or we are assuming that the IDF had no idea what weapons they were arming their aircraft with. That they they claim they initially believed the ship attacking al Aish was a battleship also negates those two arguements as the Liberty would have been easier to sink than what they were actually expecting to attack. Wayne (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing "Israeli Defense Force" to "official" works for me -- it implies GOI or IDF reports. Also, to clarify that all agruments/claims do not appear in both IDF reports and other sources, the word "and" should be replaced with the word "or". Of course, citations will inform curious readers of actual sources for any given argument/claim. So, the introductory statement suggestion is now: "The following arguments, found in official reports or other sources, were published to support that the attack was due to mistaken identity:"

Regarding the other arguments, I suggest beginning a new section to discuss ideas for improvement.Ken (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Too late Ken, I was bold. I don't think my changes are too controversial. Wayne (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's never too late to revise an edit in a dynamic, on-line publication...

Not sure why you didn't use the Goodman and Schiff quote to simplify matters, and to ensure exact represention of their viewpoint and claims. The new wording is improved, but it still says: "Accidents caused by friendly fire are common in wartime." Friendly-fire does not cause accidents; misjudgments (i.e., mistakes) or unfortunate circumstances cause accidents. Friendly-fire may or may not be due to mistake or unfortunate circumstance. Thus, in keeping with the context of the introductory statement, and the Goodman and Schiff claim, this statement should read: "Friendly-fire accidents due to mistaken identity are common in warfare."Ken (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Britain "close military partner" of Jordan?

I was about to stick a "sources needed" or "original research" tag on this statement when I saw that this article was semiprotected and controversial:

"At the time, Israel's enemy Jordan was a close military partner of the British Empire."

Is that true? I know its relations were friendly with the Brits, but I don't think it had an alliance at the time, for otherwise it would have stepped in. My other quibble is that there was no "empire" left by 67.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A fact tag would be appropriate. I find it difficult to believe that the British would have passed intelligence received from America to Jordan. Israel was a pretty good customer at the time, they bought a shed load of British tanks. Justin talk 17:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, going to do some checking on that. Certainly Jordan is now a military partner of some degree (And their current Head of State is a former British Army Officer) though I'm not sure to what degree this existed in 67. It definatly enjoyed favour with the British and Americans, receiving aid from the US. Slap a cite tag on it and lets see what appears. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict with Justin: You scottish, putting tanks in your sheds)

But don't get too carried away with slapping on citation flags -- the Wikilanders will slap your fingers...Ken (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Don't ask me how I arrived here. I don't know :-)

Britain was a very close military partner of Jordan until mid of fifties but with the pressure made by Nasser, Jordan had to take distances with it. The British officers of the Arab Legion were forced to leave this in March 56 and after the Suez crisis, ties were broken.

So, I doubt there remained ties during six days wars. But I don't know either who was their "new" ally. Not the US yet... So, this should be checked. Ceedjee (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, glad I raised the issue. I'll tag it with something if that hasn't been done already.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the first statement of the paragraph is odd: "The Liberty was capable of intercepting Israeli communications and transmitting information to America's British allies." How is this part of "Ongoing controversy and unresolved questions", the name of the section in which it appears? It is true that Liberty was capable of intercepting IDF communications -- no controversy or unresolved question here. Also, Liberty's HF transmission could be received by anybody, including the British -- no controversy or unresolved question here. Of course, unless the British (or whoever) had a KW-7 with the correct key card or patch-board setting, the received HF signal would have been undecipherable. So, again I ask: How does any of this relate to "Ongoing controversy and unresolved questions"?Ken (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think someone put it on there to try and lead people to the conclusion that Israel had a reason to blow up the Liberty (Because it could intercept their radio traffic) which is disputed but....yeah, its inclusion is pretty tentative. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only could Liberty intercept IDF radio traffic, she did intercept IDF radio traffic. See page 62 of the NSA History Report: "...Hebrew language tapes produced by USN-855 [Liberty] from the search and development mission on the morning of 8 June did not contain information on the forthcoming Israeli attack..." Again, this capability is not an ongoing controversy or unresolved question. And, of course, the claim implying that Liberty sent real-time IDF communications intelligence to the British is not cited.Ken (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Liberty a hot topic, elsewhere

I ran across this[2] Liberty incident reference (one page-down necessary), while researching something else from a different direction. It says;

The following chapter recounts the shameful role of McCain’s father in helping to cover up Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War in which 34 of the crew were killed and 294 wounded. “From a game theory perspective,” Gates explains, “by covering up the murder of Americans aboard the USS Liberty, a U.S. president (with the aid of Admiral JohnMcCain, Jr.) confirmed that Israeli extremists could murder Americans without endangering U.S. support.”

I checked the wiki-article on the source, which also seems to come back here, strange. That quote sounds much like this quote[3], which I added back in early November; one from a game theory perspective and one from a former US diplomat's perspective. I don't think it is strange.

Sounds somewhat conspiratorial, but then, I do believe the continuing editorial discussions on this page are centered on that general inference, and denial thereof. However, this little data loop does seem to indicate one predated the other, which arose from ’67 events.

I did find the following to help set some foundation for various theories, for which I was looking. It comes from Kenen’s book, Israel's Defense Line: Her Friends and Foes in Washington, 1981, available here[4], Chapter 18, p.173. It says from a very eminent Zionists’s pov.

Shortly after he took office, President Johnson told a visiting Israeli diplomat: "You have lost a very great friend. But you have found a better one."

As a senator, Johnson had scored Eisenhower's threat of sanctions against Israel in 1957, had censured Nasser's blockade of the Suez Canal, and had defeated Fulbright's attempt to neutralize the United States. As President, Johnson became the first to supply Israel with deterrent military equipment -- tanks, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-4 Phantom Jets – the first to invite top Israelis for an official visit to Washington, the first to pro¬pose desalting for a water-hungry land.

Differences with the Arabs surfaced soon after Johnson became Presi¬dent.

It sounds like Johnson already had a view developed, based on this relatively old Zionist source. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow the point Casual.... --Narson ~ Talk • 13:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond. I guess that your view of article notability is somewhat different than mine, which tends toward historical and political than military, in this case. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I fully admit I am a military and political historian, rather than social or political-social. I mean, I think the really interesting thing would be to get a social historian to look at the USS Liberty from their different methods and source choices. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be a different article, from a whole different framing. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

wP:AN

Just a note that i requested admin oversight on my last revert. Justin talk 17:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as well as I think you went a bit overboard reverting everything I did. I also take offense at your misleading undo comment as well. There was no "RS relevant material removed", it was two sentences that made no sense without citations. The "unreliable partisan source" was a relevant reference for a claim that was already in the article and, according to talk page discussion, is no more unreliable than the Jewish Virtual Library which you used to replace the cite for another paragraph that was less partisan and more relevant. As for "fringe theories" what exactly was fringe? Almost everything came from government documents or Israeli sources apart from a little from James Ennis that I only used because it was also covered in an article by the Israeli News Agency. Wayne (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for a "kill them all, shoot first ask questions later" approach to policing contributions. I understand using an extreme approach for extreme contributions (e.g., vandalism, offensive material, etc.), but otherwise it tends to discourage contributions and encourage animosity.Ken (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On non-controversial topics, perhaps. On controversial ones, I think we are best off sticking to BRD. Though that doesn't preclude doing the discussing first to create a consensus edit rather than a bold one. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bold revisions for bold contributions -- an eye-for-an-eye approach to article content management. So, what about all of the bold and uncited contributions that have existed for many months? Why hasn't bold policing been retroactively applied to them? Does the fact that they are long-standing grant them some type of immunity or special-handling privilege?Ken (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Screaming censorship and covering up the truth, continually questioning the good faith intentions of editors also tends to discourage contributions and encourage animosity. Continually edit warring to push POV edits into the article also tends to make editors with this article on their watch list a tadge revert happy. And for information this article is now on my "to do" list for a thorough overhaul. Justin talk 19:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadly Ken, articles like this will degrade, in general, over time (That is controversial articles that are not at Good or FA status and thus have no benchmark). Why? Because things that shouldn't be added don't get reverted at times due to a multitude of reasons. Justin has asked the MilHist wikiproject to do a peer review of the article, hopefully to bring it back to a benchmark standard. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Narson, This article was full of noise when I discovered it, and my time and minor efforts haven't done much to improve it. Now, it's clear that Justin wants to take charge and ensure that the article reflects the "truth" as he sees it. I suppose now it's Wayne's turn to revert Justin's contributions. Around and around we go... Time for me to step off the merry-go-round.Ken (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Now, it's clear that Justin wants to take charge and ensure that the article reflects the "truth" as he sees it."

i.e. questioning the good faith intentions of editors. QED. Justin talk 10:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ken was justified in that comment as you reverted 100% of my edits despite many of them having tacit consensus approval. You even reverted grammatical fixes I made. I deliberately made all those edits (11 of them) small so that any disputes could be tackled individually but you have effectively avoided a simple discussion or fix of any problems there may have been with any of the individual edits. I have an excellent record of edits remaining in articles and this is one of only two articles (the other is Khazars) that I have trouble with and unfortunately it with some of the same editors as here. Even the majority (98%) of my 911 edits are still in those articles, despite long arguements similar to what has been occuring here, to keep a few out so it gives me the impression I am either being targeted personally or that you have a problem with anything you personally don't agree with. If I am wrong then I apologise but how would you feel if your edits were treated similarly? This is not a personal attack but an observation I am loath to make. No one having their edits reverted is screaming censorship and covering up the truth as far as I can see. To be nuetral/good an article must include the bad with the good, what we are here to do is give both the weight they deserve and I feel I am doing that to some degree rather than concentrating on only one side as some editors tend to do. I have no problem with editors only supporting edits that conform to their beliefs but they should treat (most) opposing edits with good faith and argue the merits if they disagree.
As for Ken getting "off the merry-go-round" I hope you change your mind. You have obvious research skills and your arguements are based on logic rather than personal beliefs as can be seen just by viewing your website, I value your input and it would be WP's loss if you no longer took part. Wayne (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"This is not a personal attack but" QED Justin talk 11:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of people yelling 'Truth' and 'Censorship', I think Justin is referring to our SPA friends in the archives. However, guys? Perhaps it would be better if we stopped all the bad faith squabbling and acctually looked at the content? Would there be objections if we create a bullet point for each item the edit being reverted over added and see exactly where the objections lie? At the very least people will understand each other then? --Narson ~ Talk • 11:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Until I am satisfied the Liberty page is where it needs to be I will not move off of it. Call me SPA - whatever ... maybe we can even create a SPA BARNSTAR ? I agree with Ken --- "truth" as Justin sees it is the standard and has been all along. Your SPA friends only highlight that fact more. Yes - look at the content I am all for that. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident/sandbox

The USS Liberty incident/sandbox doesn't seem to link to this article as a parent article. Is there a need for the sandbox? -- Suntag ☼ 22:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No guess it could be a speedy deletion. Justin talk 23:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This was intended as a sandbox from which to work on the article. It's been moved from there to a user subpage under my name. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting paragraph following ADL quote

There appear to be problems with the ‘However, according to the ADL’ quote. The problem is with their logic; they are talking about two things and ‘however’ is used as an improper connector.

The quote, paraphrased, says: Boston’s ‘evidence of a cover-up’ comes ‘not from his own part in the [official] investigation but solely on alleged conversations' with Kidd; too bad he’s dead. (However??) Cristal ‘argues that the 'documentary record' [official investigation of the incident] strongly indicated that Kidd 'supported the validity of the findings [of the incident] of the Court of Inquiry to his dying day.

That seems like mixed fruit; encyclopedias should not use ‘however’ to connect apples and oranges, although ADL seems to be trying to do just that. The ADL quote should be broken in two sentences. Then, the addition of the (reverting)[5] following paragraph need only describe the position which ‘is contradicted by retired Navy lieutenant commander, James Ennes Jr who maintains that he [also] had "many talks" with Admiral Kidd where Kidd stated his belief that the attack was deliberate and urged him and his group to keep pressing for an open congressional probe.’ It should then logically follow and comply with one editor’s complaint.

I should also note, however, that ADL is a POV’d, non-neutral and long-involved source, as noted in the following quote.

“It is not uncommon for views that run counter to conventional wisdom to be suppressed. The experience of two authors is illustrative. James Ennes, officer-of-the-deck on the bridge of the USS Liberty in June 1967, wrote a book dealing with the results of his twelve-year investigation into the Israeli attack on his ship. Assault on the Liberty was published by Random House in 1980, received excellent reviews from both military and civilian critics, and then was targeted by pro-Israeli groups who wanted to suppress it. AIPAC and the B’nai B’rith coordinated the nationwide campaign.” Rubenberg also notes similar resistance encountered at Good Morning America and Nightline on ABC.

It is probably NPOV to split the quote, because the quote as expressed is for propaganda reasons, not neutrality. Questions? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not a great solution, but could we not modify the first paragraph? Rather than going back and forth over several paragraphs. Present one paragraph saying how Cristol and others have recounted many conversations where blah said ook and such. Then have a second paragraph if necessary quoting from ADL or whoever? Not a perfect or elegant solution. Though I do agree on the however C48. Hideous wording makes the quote look pretty shoe horned. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily care how the solution is reached as long as it is npov and the result sheds light rather than sews confusion ('for the benefit of readers'.) Involved editors may concatenate/differentiate/dis-associate, as appropriate. Leaving that terribly abused 'however' in the ADL's quote is not conveying encyclopedic knowledge; its allowance in Wiki would only assist in the perpetration of their POV. It is improper and not neutral as stated. Editors should fix that; it only means copying the ref another time. Losing all those big quotation marks would be good and lessen the heat too.

Involved editors must deal with that themselves. I don't want to get involved; I've tried to mediate with some before and it was not fruitful, despite best efforts from DR. As I see it here, there are two basic sides; one is, it was accidental, sorry, we paid, lets forget it. The other side says it was deliberate, then it was whitewashed (not equally investigated), and it was covered-up by higher-ups, can't forget it, won't forget it, sorry. The latter side is opposed to much more that just 'lets forget it, please'; they also are opposing their own government, which wants it forgotten. It also begs the lingering question as to why/how could that possibly happen? All, of course, properly RS'd, as you well know.

I don't want to read too much into your example, but I believe that ADL and Cristol are on the same basic side with differences only being about what specific minutia on that side they RS. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Moorer again

Worldfacts. In case you hadn't noticed Moorer was put into the article weeks ago. The edit gave due weight to what is a fringe viewpoint. Once again your edit ignored the previous edits and gave UNDUE significance to a fringe viewpoint. Move on, you've already got what you wanted. Justin talk 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The formatting was also a bit odd. We don't put links to the links like that at the start of sections. It is also a bit extreme to give it its own section as Justin says. Then finally, as Justin points out again, it is already in the article with a secondary source. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the source as well, really, the blog archives of /Hustler/? --Narson ~ Talk • 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just have to run that by the reliable sources noticeboard. Justin talk 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"reliable sources" ?? The article was written by Paul Craig Roberts - or did you miss that small item ?? Or does Mr. Roberts not meet Wiki standards? Yes ... Hustler. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard thought otherwise. In case you hadn't noticed it was actually a blog, which does not satisfy WP:RS. And to be honest, no I don't consider hard core pornography a reliable source for information on world affairs. Oh and finally, Moorer is actually already in the article but give due weight according to its significance. Justin talk 11:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

you said : "Oh and finally, Moorer is actually already in the article but give due weight according to its significance. " it was OBV ... doh ! --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ADMIRAL THOMAS H. MOORER & CAPTAIN WARD BOSTON, USN, JAG

Library of Congress. Congressional Record, 108th Congress

[Go to] http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r108query.html [enter] "Findings of the Independent Commission of the Inquiry into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty" [search]

[get] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D? r108:1:./temp/~r108BnpmR6::

[select] 1. IN RECOGNITION OF ADMIRAL THOMAS H. MOORER -- HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.Tinosa (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In the rush to censor the Moorer Report, an editor has provided readers with an example of hypocrisy. It seems user:Narson reported user:WorldFacts to administration for violation of the 3RR rule, however it seems Narson in his haste violated the rule himself with reverts at (1) 23:42 15 Dec. (2) 13:31 16 Dec. and (3) 18:48 16 Dec.. Evidently informants enjoy immunity.Tinosa (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll expect you to strike that, Tinosa. Right after you work out 3 is less than 4, the number of reverts required for a technical breach of 3RR. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Unforunately, you are correct. The rule is more than 3.Tinosa (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your bad faith accusations of censorship are also misplaced. I removed references to Moorer considering it fringe material due to the difficulty in finding any WP:RS that gave it serious attention. It was Narson who found a reliable source and produced an acceptable edit that enabled it to be put into the article with due significance. Narson didn't censor Moorer, he put it into the article.

Note also that the WP:RS quoted is a fringe author quoted in a blog on a hard core porn website, that the reliable sources noticeboard dismissed as unreliable. Now I will assume you will retract that bad faith accusation and apologise to Narson.

I'd also point out that WorldFacts edit duplicates material Narson put into the article and is excluded because it violates a number of Wiki policies. WorldFacts has consistently refused to discuss the edit here and edit warred to push his agenda. He was blocked for violating policy, nothing more. Justin talk 20:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation imposed, Israel must be exonerated

Is Wikipedia still the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit? Or has it been hi-jacked by POV? It seems as if this article is to be "mediated" regardless - probably with forcible exclusion of anyone not prepared to accept the first mediator we've been offered. ie most of the editors not already driven from it by tendentious editing and unpunished personal abuse.

In 1995 "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel's assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately" - that's not a fringe view, even the very pro-Israel JVL accepts it was true when it was written, 28 years after the incident (laughably claiming that subsequent FOI releases have exonerated Israel "even of criminal negligence").

Should I show my cards? Nobody else is doing so, but I'll tell you what the sources appear to say. The major view is that Israel (ie Moshe Dayan, who'd seized the Ministry of Defense from Prime Minister Eshkol a few days earlier) threatened to sink the Liberty on the afternoon/evening of the 7th June 1967 and set out to do so at 2.00pm on the 8th June. Pure good fortune saved the lives of over 200 Americans (4 torpedoes missed, one hit a frame, the strongest part of the ship). Israel was intent on killing all Americans who escaped, and fired at the life-rafts lowered. It's no fringe view that Israel would attack the US - it's known to have done so on at least one occasion and (although it took 50 years) has admitted as much. (I will take corrections if you think there are any mistakes in the above).

So uncontentious is this version that there are even two Israeli books which claim that attacking the Liberty was the right thing to do. Parts of the "scholarship" evidence for "my version" is here. The only part not properly explored (but hardly "surprising") in some/many of the reliable sources is evidence that Washington knew the Liberty was to be attacked. This article needs patriotic Americans to take control of it and write it properly. I'm not one of those people - neither am I a Palestinian (never been there, never met one). PR^talk 14:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite the effort of patriotic Americans there is no way this article will ever be right - not with the "revert police" on the loose. "Israel must be exonerated" at all costs - harassment and bullying --- W H I T E W A S H ... a stone cold whatewash. We all see it. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at mediation

Guys, if we can all settle down here, I'd like to assist and perhaps reduce the animosity and squabbling here. If you agree to the following terms of mediation, I will be happy to assist.

1. A basic outline of this incident must be agreed upon before substantive changes can be made. Without a basic outline, changes will be haphazard and will only lead to more problems. The exact content is not as important at this stage as the fact that a basic structure can be established from which we can all work.
2. Once an outline is agreed upon, we will go ahead with restructuring the article (either in a minor way or a major overhaul as needed)
   1. The content of the paragraphs must conform to Wikipedia standards to include WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, etc.
   2. We will likely not 100% agree on every point, but realize that dissenting points of view have value too and, if appropriate, should be included with due weight
3. Once the paragraphs are completed, we will work together to form a cohesive and appropriate lead
4. Those involved in the heavy edit warring (both sides) are only serving to inflame the situation. By adding/deleting content not agreed upon, it appears as if there is a lone wolf savaging an article. By reverting the same said changes it appears to be a tit-for-tat (read "petty") approach to the edits made. By slowing down and working together on an amicable compromise, we can create an appropriate document. Accordingly, no one (including myself) will make an edit to the page without first proposing it here and waiting 24 hours as a show of good faith towards fellow wikipedians.

Is this a formal mediation through the mediation cabal or your own initiative? You are aware that I've asked for a review to identify the issues with the article? Justin talk 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a formal anything. It's just one guy trying to help out. I am aware of your efforts. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite having rejected you as mediator below, I like your ideas of a basic outline of this article (you did mean to refer to article, you didn't mean incident did you?) agreed first, then do the paragraphs, then do the lead. I believe that the three sources claiming that Israel warned the US it would attack the Liberty (plus one source "knew that Israel would attack") needs its own section. The fourth source I've only just discovered is the Israeli-friendly Bergman in the Google-book version of his "Israel's Wars". I attempted a BRD on this element, it was hit with two reverts quick enough, but there's been no policy based discussion whatsoever. I wonder if you fully understood that this kind of conduct would have immediately made your position as mediator extremely fraught, if not impossible. PR^talk 15:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

PR? You seem to have a misunderstanding with BRD. Bold-Revert-Discuss. What you did was Bold-Revert-Revert-Revert-Discuss. After the revert, you should have discussed not reverted back in. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to put one of these excellent sources in (a top journalist, specialising in the ME, who was reporting from Israel at the time), then another one (a very well-cited specialist on US intelligence), I've now come across a third (this last one being "pro-Israel" and also much better regarded than the current "authority" that the article is largely written around). I'm waiting for WP policy to apply and this article being written to the RS, or a serious discussion on which of these sources is RS. Unfortunately, it's clear that a mediator in the position of BKZip is far too vulnerable to pressure. A pity, there are less and less true outsiders to come and defend the project in the robust way that it needs. PR^talk 18:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where you think the pressure would come from. My military background has nothing to do directly with the subject at hand. Furthermore, I have no authority to mandate any changes in the article. I cannot issue edicts and demand things only be done a certain way. That is up to you and the other editors. The only thing I'm trying to do is reduce the conflict and help find an amicable solution for all. In that capacity, my background is irrelevant. I have dealt with POV editors in the past (both sides) and realize that this is not an easy challenge. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we stop with paranoid conspiracy theories about black helicopters landing to pressure BQZip and don't try to mother BQZip either. He is old enough to decide whether he wants to fly aerodynamically unstable bits of metal strapped ontop of a seat filled with rocket motors and explosives, surrounded by explosives bolts, ontop of ammunition that explodes and jet fuel (Which also explodes)...then I'm fairly sure he is old enough to decide whether he wants to get involved in a wiki article. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I used to be in AFSOC, but all of our helicopters are painted a dark grey and we actually retired them this year, so, that was the last "black" government helicopter I've been near. Everyone lighten up a little. As for the rest of your assessment, I resent your implication that we have explosive bolts. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree

If you agree, please sign below:

• — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• --Narson ~ Talk • 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Justin talk 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wayne (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Nudve (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

If you do not wish to participate, but will not interfere, please sign below here.

Disagree

If you will not participate in such a discussion/collaboration, please sign below and state your rationale.

• Sorry - I find it near enough impossible to believe that a 30 year old in the USAF can afford the career threatening repercussions if he allows this mediation to proceed normally and produce an article to the sources. It must be fairly clear that this article, when it's written to policy, will more-or-less mirror what was said in a 1995 issue of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence - "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel’s assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately". Under these conditions, I'm afraid to say that this article will only be a credit to the project with over-sight from a neut (or, if all else fails, a Brit). Even then, a serving military person from anywhere in the West may be compromised (I'm sorry to issue this warning, I will accept corrections). We know that Boston and Moorer (at least), despite feeling very, very strongly about the affair, refused to speak until they were retired. Please note, this is not a criticism of BQZip who looks exactly like a truly uninvolved editor offering his services in perfectly good faith. His good faith in almost identifying himself is, very sadly, what renders him pretty much completely out of contention. PR^talk 10:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  You are welcome to your own opinions, but me working on mediating an article on Wikipedia has nothing to do with my career. Should there be something that is career-compromising, I would weigh the implications before proceeding and that would be my call. As an example, if my commander were accused of doing something by the local paper, I could state on Wikipedia that the local paper accused (or reported the accusation) of my commander. That is a simple fact and is in no way threatening to my career.

  Likewise, I have no intention of directly adding or deleting material from this article unless it is merely cosmetic/grammatical in nature. My role as a mediator is to help two (or more) groups of editors to come to a consensus as to how an article should be stated. Stating that a report says "XYZ" is exactly how we should do things in Wikipedia anyway. If we do it through footnotes or directly in the text, it is immaterial and a matter of writer choice/consensus.

  What concerns me most is "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel’s assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately." If that is the end-all of your stance and that nothing else can be discussed, we are starting this mediation at an impasse. That doesn't mean you have to agree to the findings of any earlier studies/reports, but that they did exist and we should include the information contained in them.

  As an example, even the statement above can be taken in many different ways:

  1. Israel's government conspired to deliberately attack the USS Liberty
  2. Israel's military conspired to deliberately attack the USS Liberty
  3. Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty thinking it was another country's ship.
  4. Those involved directly in the attack on the USS Liberty attacked it knowing it was a US ship, but higher-ups didn't know.
  5. Those involved directly in the attack on the USS Liberty attacked it not knowing it was a US ship, but higher-ups did know.
  6. etc. Add this PR alternative - some sources say the government/Eshkol was determined to avoid the Six-Day war, the military/Dayan grabbed the Defense Portfolio and simply went ahead with one, a political coup. (More than a minority opinon? Whether/exactly how included?).
  7. etc.
  8. etc.

  My point is that the quote needs to be placed within context. Is it a scholarly report done a few decades after the incident by academics? Did they view photos/video? Did they talk with witnesses? Did they view hard evidence? etc. The same goes for earlier reports. All of this information should be summarized and placed in context without giving undue weight to any one side, in line with WP policy/guidelines. PR -> The article is currently written with huge UNDUE, so there's no point in a mediator unless they're prepared to guide editors regarding it - they'll also need to identify disruption.

  Your view that "I'm afraid to say that this article will only be a credit to the project with over-sight from a neut (or, if all else fails, a Brit)." is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Reasonable people can disagree about things and still reach a compromise. Two perfect examples of this are the articles about the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and Aggie Bonfire (I am not trying to toot my own horn here, but I'm using it as an example because it works in this situation and it is something with which I am familiar). I was a primary contributor for these two articles when they went through the Featured Article process. They were mercilessly scrutinized for details/sources/formatting/grammar/etc by a lot of people. In some instances, things had to be toned down and changed. Others had to be expounded upon. In Aggie Bonfire, another article was forked off of this article to give details that weren't necessary in the parent article (this may be an ideal solution in this case to include extensive details on points of contention while still maintaining the neutrality of the article).

  I fail to see how "a serving military person from anywhere in the West may be compromised (I'm sorry to issue this warning, I will accept corrections)." Boston and Moorer were expressing official opinions on the subject and, as members of the Executive branch of the US Government were required to do as ordered. PR-> Need mediator to help with policy, not fully grasp the specific issues - let misunderstanding pass for now. I am not offering any opinion or official position on anything. I am simply stating what others' opinions are. I understand this is not intended as a criticism of me, but I believe that it is simply a misunderstanding of the situation at hand and the American military system/government in general.

  If you have any additional questions, feel free to further inquire. If what I've said does not change your mind, I thank you for your time and wish all of you the best of luck in the future. If it does, please feel free to review/revise your comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence is obviously not the last word on the matter. (Incidentally, the JVL, a thoroughly unreliable propaganda source within which denialism and fraud is readily apparent, apparently accepts this 1995 conclusion was true back then, claiming only that it's refuted by later information).

However, our USS Liberty incident article as it now stands is clearly worthless, with one poorly regarded source given hugely UNDUE over all the others.

Under these circumstances, the only form of "mediation" that will work is someone pro-active, prepared to demand answers to questions and confront the wiki-lawyering and accusations of antisemitism that blight every attempt to write this article properly.

If you or anyone needs an example of a "mediation" that was successfully manipulated to fatally damage an article, drive out scholarly contributions, and drive off the scholarly editor who was trying to write the article to reliable sources, have a look here. First of all, note that this was a content dispute dating from August 2007 (if not much earlier) - in October I tabulated this, indicating that there was either 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 in favour of including Norman Finkelstein as a source. (Slight modifications here, still at least 4 in favour, 2 unsure).

Despite this overwhelming agreement, edit-warring continued and mediation was insisted on, beginning 12th November. Look first at the lead statement of one party which begins "I agree with most of the academics in the field of Middle Eastern history when I say that Norman Finkelstein is an unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst." Unbelievably, no attempt was ever made to defend this hard-line and consensus-defying statement. (At one stage 6 weeks later, I contacted the mediator with "I am becoming alarmed at the very dubious tactics now on display at this mediation - edits such as this look like flat out falsehoods made to poison the atmosphere and defy anyone else to label them as lies." The only result of my expressing my concern was a threat to withdraw from the mediation and hold up agreement indefinitely - the mediator would not and perhaps could not enforce any substantive discussion of any of the points raised).

In January 2008, with no evidence ever presented that NF was anything other than a reliable source it appears that GHcool accepted that he was indeed an RS (ie the exact position there had been 5 months earlier from at least 4 editors with 1 objector and no more than two undecided). However, this position was only granted as a "compromise", and every statement from NF still had to be individually "mediated" through the process. The immensely patient JaapBoBo continued trying to do the right thing (remember, nobody was allowed to help him, anything from any other editor would be "interference" and would stop the mediation) until April, when he abandoned the process (indeed, abandoned the project) in disgust.

If people still don't recognise how shocking was that case (remember, this is 1 editor blocking and finally overcoming at least 4 other editors over a period of at least 8 months) or how abject was the surrender of the mediator, consider this. All the time that the use of NF was blocked (he is still blocked from that article and many others), his nemesis at this article was edit-warring into this very same article the scandalously unpleasant and untrue quotation ("Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands.") and allegations ("Fear psychosis" means victim is diseased) from a known falsifier.

Now, I don't think Cristol is a falsifier to anywhere near the extent of Schechtmann and, unlike Schechtman, Cristol deserves to be quoted (we might even stretch things and treat him "fairly", despite the concerns about him and his work). However, in the scholarly literature, Cristol is a bit part player, cited by almost nobody (in fact, the hard-copy version of his book is apparently not cited atall, only his web-site the google.book version) whereas the top rank of reliable historians/sources are extensively referenced by others. Several of these other sources claim that, not only did Israel know that the USS Liberty was American, the US knew the Liberty was to be attacked from the night before, some 15 hours earlier.

So, what is the way forwards if others join me in rejecting your kind and genuine offer to mediate? Answer, we need a mediator (either an admin or backed by admins) who will demand answers to questions, and/or stop the disruptive nature of the conduct we're seeing.

The other alternative is to design a new tag "This article has not been written in compliance with WP policies and there seems little chance of it ever being anything more than Hasbara" and apply it to this article (and others). PR^talk 12:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

PR, was that you inserting material from Alan Hart's blog, and from his self-published polemic Zionism: The real enemy of the Jews?[6] And at the same time you're soapboxing and BLP violating on this page again, this time about Cristol etc.? Please desist from "the disruptive nature of the conduct we're seeing." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, that is what we are to discuss and fix. Furthermore, there is plenty in the article that is salvageable. Many of the facts are not in dispute. The USS Liberty was a US flag ship. It was attacked by the Israelis. The attack caused deaths. There has always been controversy about the event. etc. It is a matter of what to replace and how. If I am to help in the mediation, we will discuss those on a case-by-case basis and come up with appropriate wording for appropriate sources. That said, unless you are willing to go through mediation with the above set guidelines, we are at an impasse. It sounds to me like you have plenty of reasons behind your logic. I have no problem with that and it seems like some form of what you state should certainly be included, but that is a discussion for later. I think you misunderstand the role of a mediator or an admin. You cannot demand answers to questions, but we can build consensus and come up with something appropriate. The role of a mediator is to be a facilitator. Should an admin become a mediator, he/she is involved in the discussion, they are not allowed to block someone with whom they have a dispute. What they would do for someone who is being disruptive (vandalism, violations of WP:AGF, WP:RS, etc) is report them to an appropriate forum where an uninvolved admin would review the circumstances and apply policy accordingly. I would do the same. The fact that I am not an admin is of little importance.

All I have to say about the situation is, why not? What do you have to lose? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I've now had an opportunity to see how my edits are to be opposed, I can break down my concerns into two distinct parts:

First, we need confidence that this article will be made to comply with WP "Reliable Sources" policy. I can see, and document (numerous? almost certainly) cases where good information, from highly regarded sources, has been edit-warred out of this article while very poor information has been edit-warred in. Alan Hart gives every indication of being an RS (his 2007 book hasn't yet appeared on Google Scholar, so I can't be sure what other authors think of his general credibility at the moment - but nobody has given me any reason to think he's ever lied about anything). Stephen Green's "Taking Sides" is an excellent source (26 cites). Ahron Bregman is, as best I can see, another good source (7 cites). Meanwhile, Cristol is very, very low on this "rated by other authors" scale, his book does not seem to be cited, only the Google-book version - and that only once. Even those who knock Hart's publisher (why?) have provided no means to adjudge between publishers - is Cristol's publisher, Brassey, any better or different than World Focus? If we cannot even get proper answers to questions like this, when we have highly experienced administrators hovering, then there is something more than a few solvable content-disputes in the melt.

And, when even my attempts at kick-starting this discussion fail to raise anything substantive (only ridiculous but threatening cries of BLP and "SOAP-BOXING"), then the alarm-bells ring loud. Accusations of antisemitism have already been aimed at editors, just on this new round of trying to fix this article.

Secondly, we can see that the results of my first concern have produced an article that doesn't match the record, since even the stoutest propaganda defenders of the "accident" narrative such as the JVL admit that, by 1995, the statement "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel’s assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately" was true (the Fall, 1995 Vol 8, No 3 edition of the IJIC). So, has anything changed in the last 13 years? Nothing that "exonerates" Israel has come out that I know of - the publication of Cristol's book, treated here as if it was so authoritative, has not (as far as I can tell) changed anything. The biggest change I can see is that one or two "US knew of planned attack" has become three or four "Dayan personally threatened the US with an attack". How can it possibly be that we've ended up with an article that covers up such a major element? Answer, the point about the RS I made above.

Lastly, my reason for rejecting you is not personal in any way. This discussion must be mediated by someone either retired or non-American or both - see this account that highlights the danger you would be in. A mediator who can be threatened is worse than useless - this article must be written to policy, and you're in the worst possible position to help. More than that, we must have someone who will demand answers, demand that statements made are properly backed up - previous mediators have not always seen this as necessary. Questions such as "Do we have any reason to doubt Hart, a top journalist?" - "Who has a copy of Cristol's book - does it really say that 13 inquiries exonerate Israel?" and so forth. That's not SOAP-BOXING, it's the fundamentals of writing a good article. PR^talk 11:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Jayjg assume good faith at this point. On of the points of this mediation is to determine reliability of sources so it is disruptive to use this section to throw accusations around.
PR: From what I see this is not an official mediation but an unofficial one which BQZip has offered his time to help out with. If he has problems such as you suggest then I see no reason why we can't opt out and try again. Give him a chance and see where it takes us. Wayne (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely up to you - I've seen a mediation become a rail-roading that lost a fine editor to the project. It was proved to this careful and scholarly contributor that a good source would never be allowed into a particular article (despite what I think was 4 to 1 support from other editors). The article in that case was of trivial significance compared with this one - and this particular farce was forced through with none of the heavy handed threats of admin interference that we see here. That whole sham took over 8 months, the project was seriously impoverished by it and I should have sworn I'd never let anything so ridiculous happen again. Hey-ho, what am I doing now?

Back to sources - I've found my way around the Cristol book at Google-books (and may have proved to myself that it does not use the word "exonerate", which is potentially a down-tick for O'Keefe). However, I also found and read Chapter 11 ("Did Dayan Do It?") - which alone shows Cristol up as a terrible source. He devotes an entire chapter to proving that Dayan was having a picnic at the time of the attack on the Liberty. But the allegation is that Israel had planned to attack the Liberty at least a day earlier. The US seems to have known of this threat at least 16 hours before the attack was launched ... and this is the immensely damaging claim that's been in the public domain since at least 1977, 25 years before Cristol was writing. So this entire chapter on the picnic is complete flannel, incapable of proving anything whatsoever! (Well, unless we do a little OR on the extraordinary claim that General Dayan was out of touch for some 18 hours slap in the middle of the 6-day war, while his battle-scarred armour was secretly moving all the way from the Suez Canal to the Golan Heights - perhaps people can ponder that one through for themselves). PR^talk 16:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

These points and others can be brought up during discussion, but I'm not going the talk about the pros/cons of any side of an argument nor what is /isn't going to be included in the article until everyone is on board for mediation; that's just putting the cart before the horse. If you are in, you are in. If you aren't, I guess I'll see ya'll later. I assure you we WILL get to your points within mediation and we will have a reasonable discussion as to how to phrase these points and how much of everything will be included in the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to ask participants to back assertions that they make? Mediation is meaningless if people refuse to engage in discussion, rely on non-policy objections or introduce spurious claims of BLP and SOAP-BOXING into discussions on RS. We've seen each of these things already - is the future going to be different from the past? How will you deal with challenges to RS? How can we be confident that time-wasting won't be used as a device to lock the article in it's existing form? Are you going to require that people who accept the mediation defend the "results"? Presumably so, it's just I'm not seeing evidence there will be any "results".

(I've deleted what I presented here, I thought I had an example of tendentious editing and abuse of procedures - I'm still satisfied that this is a case of POV-pushing aimed at damaging articles, but it looks as if most good-faith editors have now abandoned this case after the 8 or so months that this one has also been going on). PR^talk 18:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not being an official mediation we have some flexibility. You should know by now that some editors rely almost solely on claims of policy violations to support their position without explaining why it is a violation and nothing will change that. Doesn't mean we have to accept what they say and I'll be one of the first to stand up against that kind of debating. Look at this as a try before you buy. If things go pear shaped I'll support you in ending this mediation and trying something else but we have to have a go. Wayne (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for confirmation that we have a mediator who can or will guide us towards editing to policy. That's not much to ask before I say "Agree". And, to be blunt, we don't need editors who will stand up to non-policy arguments, we need an administrator who will act against the disruptive. PR^talk 08:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can and will guide towards editing towards policy. I will also err to the side of guidelines. Though they are not policy they are generally good advice and, barring a reason for not following them, I'll follow them too. That said, there are many things that policy doesn't cover (such as word choice, hyphenation, regional spelling issues, etc) and those will be hashed out in a reasoned discussion. That said, WP:IAR is also policy, but will be cited/used sparingly (if at all). Can we count you in? If so, simply add another subheading under disagree called comment and we'll get started ASAP for all concerned. Glad to have you aboard! — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Can we have a statement from you about "Reliable Sources" - will you defend discussions on that score, mediate the conclusion and defend the implementation of conclusions? Where we have really clear evidence that sources have been guilty of gross misrepresentation, will you help reject the inclusion of their testimony? I give you fair warning, I'm thinking of statements such as "Boston's evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation"?

And I need a bit more detail - if I join the mediation, what does that mean? Does it bind me to accept and defend the conclusion/s? What am I getting in return? Please don't tell me I'll benefit from the imposition of "compliance with policy" because that's the minimum I should expect anyway. The whole exercise is pointless unless we have compliance with policy. So what's in it for me if I put my name to "Agree"? PR^talk 11:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Although you see it as the same thing and i have no problem with that, It's not "what's in it for me" but "what's in it for the articles neutrality". Reliable sources need some leeway as all can be accused of some form of "gross misrepresentation", a concept which is subjective anyway. I'd accept Cristol's book as a RS because it is a major, often referenced and largely "only" source for much of the accident theory. Where it is misrepresenting something such as in your example then we should be able to counter the argument with facts. Excluding it hides the fact that there are misrepresentations which is counterproductive to your position. Other sources not reliable such as WRMEA and JVL I have no problem with allowing depending on what they are references for which can be debated in talk if it is a problem. Policy allows this use of sources not normally considered reliable. Such flexibility helps both sides of the dispute. Wayne (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable Sources" are credible published materials with a reliable publication process. It really is that simple. Realize that the reliability of a source depends on the claim. If an article cites the number of children an actor has from his personal website, I have no problem with that (unless the actor in question has a reason to lie about it). Likewise first-party sources are acceptable in general for sentences related to themselves, but they must not include analysis; for example, a claim about an actor being claimed by mistake in credits, it would be appropriate to include a screenshot of that movie's credits to bolster the claim.

I will help guide discussions to build a consensus. As for "defend[ing] the implementation of conclusions?" I will do no such thing. I will, however, defend consensus.

"Where we have really clear evidence that sources have been guilty of gross misrepresentation, will you help reject the inclusion of their testimony?" No, I will not. That is not my place nor the place of Wikipedia. We will present the information and state any reasonable problems with such claims on both sides.

"I give you fair warning, I'm thinking of statements such as 'Boston's evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation'?" We'll discuss those in due time and see what we can do to build a consensus on the phrasing of that sentence (for which you obviously have a problem). — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Provided some of the so-called editors (among others specifically JayJG) act in good faith and don't scream anti-semitism at every entry that shows the truth I would be able to to agree. However based upon his track record and the track record of others I simply can not agree. They've done nothing to earn my trust. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary Break - purpose of mediation

To BQZip0 - one of the people who has put their name to your mediation (and hence is presumably binding themselves to abide by your wishes) recently told us "... 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)) (this in the context of defending the removal of no less than 52 "citation needed" tags). Now, this same editor has just now removed a tag that says "This article needs additional citations ... help improve this article ... Unsourced material may be ... removed". Did you offer to mediate in order that this article be improved by the normal methods, which include tagging of the un-cited?

In addition, this last revert re-inserted the claim about Boston's affadavit, which was discussed at "Removal of the response to Boston's claims". (Please note that this discussion was less than a month ago, but is not visible to us because the TalkPage has had disruptively premature archiving imposed on it with this). Now, the only argument in favour I can see is that this source falls within "questionable source" and can be used sometimes. The conclusion of that discussion is that four editors object (some of them on real, policy-based objections that it's non-RS) while three defend using the source on, as far as I can see, non-policy grounds. Note how I warned people above that this inclusion is highly objectionable (I called it a lie). There was no attempt at discussion then, and there's been no attempt at discussion after the revert.

So another question for you - are the results of TalkPage consensus and acquiescence with further Talkpage reminders going to be implemented or not? Because, of course, if you're unwilling or incapable of imposing some form of order over the discussion and the editing which is carried out based on agreement, there seems almost no point in my joining the mediation. PR^talk 13:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PR, perhaps focusing on content rather than contributors would be useful at this point? Either say yes you will take part and see where it goes or say no and see where that goes. Mediation is just a consensus building exercise to try and solve issues. I am sure that we all want to solve the problem and that consensus would be a fine thing to have. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PR. I have said on repeated occasions that your concerns (whatever they may be) will be addressed in the discussion. You have made it abundantly clear that you object to the current phrasing/content in this article as it currently stands. My role as a mediator is to facilitate a discussion by which parties from all sides can come to an agreement on the article as a whole.

As I have stated before, I lack the ability to impose any restrictions on anyone; I am not an admin (or "higher-up"). Even if I were, it would be improper (as an involved party) to impose any sanctions onto any Wikipedian participating in such a discussion. The only restriction I can make on editing by anyone involved is encouraging self-restraint (as I stated in the beginning of this proposal as one of the conditions of this mediation).

I am not going to debate the substance of your arguments. This is not the time/place for it and, when we do discuss it, we should have constructive solutions "How about 'XYZ' instead of 'ABC'" instead of "No, not that! That's a fabrication". Some phrasing that has been proven demonstrably false can still be included if properly prefaced:

The phrase "Give me an army of West Point graduates and I'll win a battle. Give me a handful of Texas Aggies and I'll win the war" is a popular phrase among the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M as well as their supporters which they attribute to General George S. Patton. While it may have some basis in his faith in some of the Aggies in his staff in World War II, no historical evidence has ever been uncovered to corroborate the phrase.

Likewise, if something has doubt associated with it, then that doubt can be expressed tactfully and reasonably.

The phrase "Give me an army of West Point graduates and I'll win a battle. Give me a handful of Texas Aggies and I'll win the war" is a popular phrase among the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M as well as their supporters which they attribute to General George S. Patton. The origin of this phrase comes from the numerous Aggies on his staff in World War II. Though no direct historical evidence has ever been uncovered to corroborate the phrase, several eyewitnesses claim to have heard the General utter such a phrase.

Additionally, if something is completely true, but has notable detractors, then that doubt can also be expressed tactfully and reasonably.

The phrase "Give me an army of West Point graduates and I'll win a battle. Give me a handful of Texas Aggies and I'll win the war" is a popular phrase among the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M as well as their supporters which they attribute to General George S. Patton. The origin of this phrase comes from the numerous Aggies on his staff in World War II. Though several eyewitnesses claim to have heard the General utter such a phrase, supporters of West Point and General Patton point to the fact that no direct historical evidence has ever been uncovered to corroborate the phrase.

In short, there are many ways to phrase something and I am confident we can assuage everyone's concerns if we all just agree to a simple framework (mediation) in which to reconstruct the article in such a way that all parties' concerns are addressed. As a mediator, I will try to help the parties decide as a group, what will work well, and, hopefully we can all work together to come up with something that everyone can accept. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell us more about this simple framework - what are we signing up to? Does your boss know what a minefield you've put your foot into, and has his boss promised that he'll protect your back as well? Here is Ennes: "In an incredible abuse of authority, military officers held two young Liberty sailors against their will in a locked and heavily guarded psychiatric ward of the base hospital. For days these men were drugged and questioned about their recollections of the attack by a 'therapist' who admitted to being untrained in either psychiatry or psychology. At one point, they avoided electroshock only by bolting from the room and demanding to see the commanding officer." ("Assault on the Liberty" by James Ennes). In paraphrase, he apparently continues "Since coming home, the veterans who have tried to tell of their ordeal have been harassed relentlessly. They've been branded as drunks, bigots, liars and frauds. Often, it turns out, these slurs have been leaked by the Pentagon. And, oh yeah, they've also been painted as anti-Semites." Do you have the entire management of the Air Force, up to and including your Pentagon masters, prepared to defend you?

If you're not aware of, and prepared to combat, the efforts already been made to cover up then there's no point in proceeding. Remember, even the JVL accepts that, by 1995, "all serious scholarship" on this subject says that this was not a mistake. Bullying is clearly evident througout the history of these TalkPages - it's not visible at the moment because it's been prematurely archived to hide just the kind of substantive discussion (and 4-2 consensuses as over Boston) that we're having here! PR^talk 09:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this article recently since I commented on it at a MILHIST Peer Review. I just want to say that the above seems ridiculous, PR. It sounds like a conspiracy theory rant. BQZip has given his valuable time for a mediation, and this sort of conspiracy theory stuff is just wasting time. I can't imagine that BQZip, being in the Air Force (I believe that's right?) will be in any affected/harassed by his superiors or anyone in the US military for attempting to mediate on an article on the Liberty Incident, and not even writing anything about it. It's not like he's demanding an actual real-life investigation like you see in the movies, PR - he's editing an article at the end of the day, and only then in minor ways and not adding/removing info as I understand it. So can we leave this stuff behind and concentrate on producing a good article? Skinny87 (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting a sensible answer to the question "What does it mean to sign up for the mediation?". Let alone the much more important "How will the mediation deal with arguments over reliable sources?".

Furthermore, even as we hold this important discussion here, I'm seeing persistent edit-warring over a known consensus of five to two, about a source that is clearly lying in the quote two people want to include. So this article is suffering from disruption even from those who've signed up to mediation. There's a second blatant example of disruption going on right this moment, removing "needs citation" tags, both to 60 uncited statements within the article, and to the article itself.

I'm not seeking to add my own POV to this article (despite having one that I flag with my Username). I've never deliberately abused edits in that way - those who've sought to claim that I've done so can be seen cheating here. I'm only seeking to edit this article to policy, no more and no less.

Now, when I've also seen a mediation abused over 8 months to drive out good editors, one editor overcoming at least four and perhaps six, I think more people than just me need answers to my questions. I'm clearly not the only person hanging back from signing up to the mediation.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, in this case very much more than most, it's vital we have a bully-proof mediator - and a retired neut is probably the only kind who should offer themselves. PR^talk 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Any editor is much like annother, PR. The whole 'I have a POV but I'm golden and never show it' is a load of hooey and you know it. Everyone has one, everyone will show it at some time or annother, even you. Mediation is an exercise in building a consensus for edits. That there is one outlier case of bad mediation does not render the whole process of consensus building void. As for those holding back, the only ones I don't see signed up are ken and the SPAs whose only interest these days seems to be edit warring and spewing invectives. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't about numbers, it isn't a vote. I don't like using the ADL as its a partisan source but for a quote about what it itself says it is acceptable per WP:RS. You might also care to note I'm editing against personal preference. Justin talk 12:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair play to you (Justin), you have indeed edited/expressed an opinion against what might be seen as your personal preference. People would be wrong to assume you think this quote we're still using is a transparent lie because we've no reason to think you agree with me on this or anything else. However, even if you'd gone the other way, the consensus of editors would still have been against including this quote. The mediation we've been offered is presumably helpless in cases of disruption this blatant - worse, it's a time-wasting diversion from the problem. If I signed up to this mediation I would confidently expect us to be right back in the same place in July 2009, 8 months time, but with more good editors having abandoned the project in frustration. PR^talk 16:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The only disruption I see here is your soapboxing. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating so convincingly that this "mediation" was never going to be anything but a white-wash.

And thankyou for drawing the discussion to a close - 5 other interested editors were needed to join the mediation and it looks highly unlikely they'll do so now. PR^talk 18:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd be happy to go on with mediation, as we have 5 people for and 1 against, and just ignore you. If you want to be marginalised, I've got no problem with that. You threw yourself on the sword, be damned if I'm pulling it out or calling the ambulance. However, that is unlikely to build a consensus. Take part or don't take part PR. Just stop playing the games trying to find a way out. If you arn't going to take part, just admit you have no desire to build consensus and we'll all move on and the article suffers. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no bloody way a concensus will ever be reached given the self serving sole purposed single-minded POV's of the participants. This will be like swimming upstream - endlessly. "I don't agree ... revert revert revert and revert again". I'd say yes but I fear that this land is lawless. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So after days of refusing to define the purpose of a mediation (at a sub-section entitled "purpose of mediation"), you've now announced how it's going to work, by which editors either sign up or are excluded from consideration at the article. I've been pleading for regular policy enforcement at this article, and I'm not going to get it. But you're now going to enforce something completely different, something that is not and never has been policy. It all makes sense. PR^talk 19:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not going to enforce anything surrounding mediation or the like, PR. I have said before that the purpose of mediation is to build consensus. As for excluding people, it won't happen without people. Consensus can't really be built when people refuse to take part in the process, as I said above. Though please be clear PR, if you are excluded, it is you who is doing the excluding. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is that the ADL clip about Boston doesn't merit inclusion. Are you going to abide by consensus? PR^talk 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is obviously no such consensus. Please desist from "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mislead ?? PR is hardly misleading any of us my friend.--HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

PR error - decision was 5 to 2 against

Congratulations, Jayjg, the decision on Boston/ADL inclusion was 5 to 2 against not 6 to 2 as I'd started to claim. I had correctly added Yellabin ("It seems there is some great effort to include ADL references here, which appears to me to be shoehorning") but then accidentally added WorldFacts too. The latter is currently being bullied into submission over a more important POV issue - he's not getting my support because the serious flaw he's identified is not quite so blatantly anti-policy and dishonest (in my opinion - or perhaps I've simply succumbed to the bullying).
So why is there a "decision" but not a "consensus" on the Boston/ADL quote? Because consensus has been obstructed by transparently absurd arguments, such as that the source in question meets the "dubious sources" standard (when it doesn't even do that!). If administrators encouraged discussions on matters factual we wouldn't have this problem - and of course, my simple mistake would have been picked up days ago. My mistake neither undermines my claim nor reflects on my usual standard of care. It seems astonishing that you'd aggressively accuse me of dishonesty with a statement coming this perilously close to it yourself.
Editors considering joining the mediation we've been offered will be still more puzzled that the first person offering his services as a mediator failed to examine the evidence and failed to pick up on this mistake. PR^talk 11:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. You soapbox on about perceived poicy breaches, yet when WorldFacts blatantly breaches one of our core policies (3RR), you describe that as bullying. And PR? Plese read up on consensus. Notably that it is not a numbers game (Otherwise our meatpuppet friends would rule the roost every time) and that local consensus must be made with consideration to wider consensus (The polices and the like). No-one ever addressed the issue that ADL is used a great deal over wiki, indicating a wider consensus that it is reliable. As I've said, join in mediation, the issue will be discussed I'm sure. Or don't and it will still be discussed. I believe you want an improved article, and I believe mediation will lead to that. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As one who doesn't like the inclusion of the ADL, no there isn't a concensus to exclude it. Also as someone immensely frustrated by this interminable delay, if PR doesn't wish to join in, fine, we can move on without him. Justin talk 11:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree on moving on with it, Justin. Obviously it puts an extra stage in after mediation, but at the very least it might develop some concrete proposals for the article. I've proposed to BQZip that we start at or after the weekend with whoever has signed up by then. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend (or even side in discussion with) editors carrying out clumsy 3RR, however it does appear to me that WorldFacts is being bullied. He's certainly suffering blatant violation of NPA such as "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" and "The bad faith diatribes and provocations of WorldFacts will just have to go unanswered". I can see absolutely no call for this abuse - and it's noticeable how, even with this level of provocation, he's not retaliated. WF was also aggressively told from on high that his inclusions of Moorer are WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE - and yet, he cannot get answers satisfactory either to him or at least one other. This kind of unilateral imposition of unexplained policy is bullying in anyone's terms. Even if there's UNDUE, it's unbelievable that Admiral Moorer (and his 3 top military colleagues) are deemed FRINGE without a careful explanation. The whole functioning of the project is in disrepute when this goes on. PR^talk 12:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhm. None of those would be personal attacks, PR. Some probably bad faith, but WorldFacts used up my GF long ago when it no longer became tenable to extend it to him. Please stop throwing stones from inside your glass house. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Struck because I decided I want no further part in these discussions outside of mediation except where necesary. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bullied !! Absolutely ... he is absolutely being bullied. Look at what happened when WF referenced an article written by the very reputable Paul Craig Roberts - "USS Liberty: Govt. Betrayal & Cover-up Finally Exposed" ... the "revoke" was based on the article being in Hustler. Hustler may be many things but it at least had the nerve to report what we all know to be the truth - that the attack on the USS Liberty was well planned, intentional and its aftermath covered up by President Johnson and every administration since. In a signed affidavit Captain Boston said President Johnson ordered a cover-up and that he and Admiral Kidd were prevented from doing a real investigation. Liberty survivors were ordered never to speak to anyone about the event. Their silence was finally broken when Lt. Commander Jim Ennes published his book, Assault on the Liberty.

BULLIED --- tried and convicted.--HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

James Ennes was not the first survivor to go public with extensive information about the USS Liberty attack. See: The Enquirer Magazine, Sunday, June 9, 1974, pages 37-53: "Attack on Liberty", by attack survivor John R. Randall. He was on active duty when he wrote the article -- assigned to the Cincinnati, Ohio Navy Recruiting Command.Ken (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, The Enquirer is the name of a Cincinnati, Ohio newspaper. The Enquirer Magazine cited above was published by the newspaper as an insert in its Sunday edition.Ken (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Break 2 - confidence in mediation

PR, I have no intention of rehashing my points on the subject. Your points of contention are noted, but this section of this venue is not about that. It is about agreeing to work together to build a better article about this subject. I have no power to enforce anything. With regards to my role in this discussion/mediation, you clearly do not understand the construct of the American military within American society and refuse to listen to any idea contrary to your own misperceptions.

"The mediation we've been offered is presumably helpless in cases of disruption this blatant - worse, it's a time-wasting diversion from the problem." Respectfully, no, it isn't. Mediation helps to find a middle ground. But if you are more interested in pushing a viewpoint than working together, then there is nothing mediation will solve. Of those who have responded, there is only one person with whom mediation does not seem acceptable: you. I'm sorry you think that we would be back in the same place in July 2009, but since you are at an impasse now, what makes you think that doing absolutely nothing will change anything?

"I'm not getting a sensible answer to the question 'What does it mean to sign up for the mediation?'. Let alone the much more important 'How will the mediation deal with arguments over reliable sources?'." I have given you answers to both to which you have insinuated my country will haul me away and I am in mortal/professional danger. Let's say you are accurate in your assessment: So what? That's my risk and I accept it. In any case, that is my problem and it has nothing to do with you and mediation.

I believe this will be a good idea and mediation is not binding. If you choose to participate and then decide to leave, there is no punishment. If you decide to participate and then say something only once over the next 3 years, no harm/no foul. In short, you have nothing to lose by working together with your fellow Wikipedians.

Please, join us. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd undoubtedly be in serious professional danger if you were to allow this article to imply that Israel/Dayan threatened to attack the Liberty on the 7th and carried out that threat on the 8th (only great good fortune prevented them killing everyone on board). Which is (I'd be almost certain) what the article will say when it is finally written to RS.

However, even if you were not disqualified (you've not given an affirmative answer to my question), I fail to understand what you mean by "find a middle ground". There is no "middle ground" between the arsonist and the fireman, just as there is no middle ground concerning the prominent appearance of a statement from a notorious non-RS, supported by 2 editors and opposed by 6.

To be the smallest bit effective at this article, at an absolute minimum the mediator must be willing to close discussions once they're well and truly over and state what the community has decided/reached consensus over. You're giving me and (it would appear) other editors no confidence that agreements and consensus will ever be found - or treated as binding - or even have any meaning. Even those who've signed up don't apparently consider themselves bound by anything - see my last entry. PR^talk 15:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RS, I have repeatedly stated that my personal or professional lives would not be affected in any way by this article

1. I remain anonymous on here, so there is no way to directly trace it to me. Should someone desire to run an IP trace to find out who I am, they would have to do so illegally, or under false pretenses. In either case, a lawsuit by myself against such individuals/organizations would set me up for life. I'd retire and continue doing what I'm doing now as a private citizen.
2. I'm not "allowing" anything. Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation are those that allow this content to exist in whatever form they deem acceptable (in general, that's pretty much an "anything goes" format and allow people to assist).
3. Your repeated statements show a gross misunderstanding of the authority of the U.S. military over its members as well as legal/professional ramifications for those involved on Wikipedia.
4. Wikipedia is only reflecting what has already been published. Anything anyone adds should be backed by a reliable source. Therefore, no one is saying anything here that someone else isn't already claiming.

You also seem to misunderstand the concept of mediation. It is a first step in dispute resolution. In nonbinding mediation (which I am attempting here) the mediator(s) talk to each side in an attempt to find a middle ground. In the case of the arsonist and the fireman, their middle ground is court where each side presents their discussion and a jury decides what happens to the arsonist (if anything). They have no common ground, but, by being a Wikipedian, all of us have some things in common.

As I stated before, I'm not here to discuss individual problems you have with the article. That will be done elsewhere and at a different time.

I have no authority to "enforce" anything.

Mediation has not yet started and those who have stated they will be happy to do it are free to do as they wish right now.

Starting mediation without PR's presence will not help matters in any capacity.

Should this last attempt fail, I will turn it over to the administrators, but I really don't want to do that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Normally, when someone has offered to be a "neutral intermediary" (or in some fashion or other, a third party facilitator), there will be some in favor of doing it this way and some against. Less than (say) 80% in favour will normally, sadly, persuade the offeree to withdraw with no stain on their character. In this case there are perhaps a dozen other editors you need to have on board before the mediation could realistically be declared as having begun.

Now, if there were a good quota of current editors signed up here and you were ready to start of the mediation you've another problem - even those who have signed up are not bothering to actually discuss anything with you, here or at your sand-box page. They're not even abiding by a 6-2 preference of other editors on a point already discussed and decided. PR^talk 20:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, I have not started mediation yet and have not asked anyone to be involved on my own user pages. That has little to do with the discussion at hand: whether you will agree to mediation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't flag the fact that nobody (else) has actually been to you and asked your advice on anything yet. At least I tried. PR^talk 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And your snide remark isn't helpful. As I said before, we haven't really started yet, so why anyone would actually do anything is beyond me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Listen mate, I'm nothing but a prawn in the great wheel of editing. If I've disrespected you, then it will probably count in your favor and make it more likely that other editors will ignore me and sign up. PR^talk 09:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is because everyone is waiting for you to stop playing silly buggers, PR, so we know who the parties are. No point starting only to have to restart. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Narson, such comments are not needed. I request that you strike out your comment as it does not help matters. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree and do think this softly softly routine merely panders far beyond what is required of us, but as you asked nicely, I'll strike them. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Other editors keen to improve this article are not waiting for my permission to accept the services of the first person who offers themselves as a mediator. Nor do I need you to persuade me to accept the first person who offers us their service as mediator.

What I need you to do is answer the question I asked you above "Consensus is that the ADL clip about Boston doesn't merit inclusion. Are you going to abide by consensus?" PR^talk 20:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You fail to grasp what consensus is. Once you manage to understand it isn't a case of majority rule (And your numbers do seem to jump up and down on your whim), then perhaps dialogue can ensue. There is a reason above why I said mediation can proceed without you but isn't likely to build consensus. As long as anyone has good faith objections and they are not willing to at leastsay 'Yes, I disagree but I will step aside', then consensus isn't achieved. Now, obviously, bad faith obstructionism generally gets ignored for purposes of consensus but good faith objections can't just be ignored for as long as someone is willing to stick to them. As for the ADL one, the discussion was never as black and white as you seem to want to depict it. I imagine the use of ADL and the other sites in the article would be covered in the mediation as we seek to rewrite things. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You had ample opportunity to extend the discussion and persuade other editors (most of whom were and are falling over backwards not to be disruptive) of your point of view. You'd have failed, because of the weight of evidence (to which you assented - "They took a political stance....your point?") that the ADL was rendered a non-RS for anything "surprising".

Now then, are you going to continue to defy most of the other editors at this article and insist that this quote be included? Would you respect the views and wishes of others any better if you'd accepted mediation? Oops, you have accepted mediation - so are you going to allow progress at this article, starting with the exclusion of bad material from clearly untrustworthy sources? PR^talk 22:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth and stop assuming things PR. Did I revert the ADL quote back in? No. You need Justin for that. Are you going to allow progress and join the mediation? ADL can then be discussed, certainly, when considering the article as a whole and what sources are relevent to quote, verbatim. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to PR. I think you are assuming too much by thinking BQZip01 will be persecuted by the military. He is mediating only, not deciding or controlling content. Maybe they will notice but I doubt they even consider the Liberty worth the trouble considering the amount of info now available and the time passed since the incident. If you dont want to take part in the mediation then fine but you will then give more power to your opponents so it's your call. ATM mediation is pointless as your arguments are filling the talk page. Join in and let's get on with making this article NPOV. Wayne (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not holding anything up, I'm just one of the majority of involved editors who have not signed. I've hardly twisted anyone's arm not to sign, unlike what's been done to me.

Admittedly, I've explained my reasons for not signing up yet - maybe that's my mistake. Putting ones cards on the table would normally be considered a confidence-building (even a "join the game") activity. Maybe it's a different game people want to play and I'm just not bright enough to understand what's going on. PR^talk 09:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)