Jump to content

Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Discourse

Perhaps the last section could undergo a renaming to (something like) "Statement by Joe Meadors of USSLVA" just to make it known that it is not something natively included by the wikipedians, and is something with a definate perspective. Maybe? Ich 22:11, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I added some major points for the non-conspiracy theory arguments, as well as a link to the web site belonging to some of the survivors of USS Liberty. I recognize that I am biased, to some extent, due to my being an Israeli. However, when (and if) points are added to the pro-conspiracy theory arguments, I'd like them to be based on facts (mentioned in the body of the article), or refer to a reliable source (that is a source which takes into account the structure of the Israeli army, wittness accounts etc.) -- Uriyan.

Hoo boy! This page needs some NPOV lovin'. I can tell this is going to as contentious as some of our other fun topics like abortion and who shot JFK. -- ansible

(Abortion and JFK? child's play. Try writing up the Nurse Nayirah hoax, or pointing out that fluoride is not a good thing to drink, not even for your teeth. But I guess there will always be those who bleeve anything their gummint tells 'em. -- Driven Underground by Profluoridationists)

Prepared and submitted by:
Joe Meadors
Vice President
USS Liberty Veterans Association
email: [email protected]
March 26, 2002

All right, sir, several things. First of all, I have nothing against you trying to issue your view. But in Wikipedia we don't do this at the expense of deleting other people's opinions, no matter how inane they seem to you. Indeed, among us it is popular to try to get into other people's argument. I will try to be considerate of your argument - but I will not be silenced. --Uriyan

My apologies. I didn't intend for my changes to become contentious. I saw some incorrect information in the posting that I changed and corrected. I thought the easiest thing was to recreate it from scratch.

I also included some information that you left out -- like the actions of the Israelis during the attack.

Feel free to add or modify it as long as your changes reflect the facts and not merely conjecture.

I'd be interested in learning your background as it involves the USS Liberty attack and where you acquired your interest and expertise in USS Liberty research. As for me, I am a USS Liberty survivor and have been on the Board of Directors of the USS Liberty Veterans Association for most of the past 20 years since the organization was formed. --Jmeadors

Hello,

First of all I'd like to thank you for stopping this flamewar and deciding to talk, as I see this as a first step in making the article better (i.e. equally representative of the two main points of view). Generally, in Wikipedia it is considered extremely impolite to delete someone else's individual comments (as you did with my criticism of Ennes), and it is even more impolite to replace an existing point of view with your own entirely. See neutral point of view and Wikipetiquette for more details about that.

I added my points to the article and changed their order to chronological. I also described the attack according to the Navy Court transcripts and moved some of your points to "controversy". You should note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - that is, as editors we're not supposed to have opinions. In order to state the opinions that every man obviously has, we state the appropriate fact (e.g. "no markings were seen on the Israeli aircraft") and then the particular opinions, mentioning their bearers ("The survivors of the ship claim that the attacking aircraft were unmarked").

My personal background is not as big as I could hope - which does not, however, invalidate my claims. I am an Israeli student fond of history; I've come across several mentioning of the USS Liberty incident in articles and books during the years. Several months ago, I saw a discussion at kuro5hin, and read some more. What I do have is some familiarity with the Israeli and Middle Eastern politics and history, and an Israeli perspective on things. --Uriyan

Would it be possible for me to "take advantage" of your interest in the Liberty? I'd like you to do some research for me. If you don't have any problem with it please email me at [email protected]. --Jmeadors

Unfortunately, I can't, since I'm a very amateurish historian with very little time to do serious research. If I do get some free time or if I come across something interesting, I can surely notify you.
In addition, I wanted to thank you for contributing to this article, and invite you to update it if you feel that my factual information is incomplete or you think that your point is misrepresented.
On a related note, while as far as I see, you've become interested with Wikipedia because of this particular article, I ask you to consider editing additional articles as well, because of your expertise as a Navy man and a researcher. --Uriyan

Let me post my request here in the event that some lurkers may be able to help.

For about 25 years we have had a copy of the IDF Preliminary Report 1/67 prepared in September, 1967 by a gentleman named Yerushalmi. It has come to be known as the Yerushalmi Report.

Since the account related by that report is so at odds with our recollections and in places defy the laws of physics we have been attempting to obtain a copy of the evidence and testimony that support the report. Unsuccessfully, I'm afraid.

If anyone has been able to obtain a copy of that evidence and testimony we'd appreciate it if you could provide us with a copy.

By the same token, if someone could pursue a course that would result in its being released and then provided to us we would be most appreciative. --Jmeadors

After having come back to this page after a couple days, I see that it is much improved! Kudos to everyone involved. -- ansible

I expanded the article some more trying to write what I'd figured out so far about who said what, perhaps more could be added. --Uriyan

As you add to your article could you also provide some footnote references to direct readers to the supporting documents? For example, where you say "the Israelis claim" or "the Americans claim" I'm sure readers will be interested in knowing exactly where your information is coming from. --Jmeadors

I restored the Israeli claims from memory (I remember reading quite a thorough discussion of the case from an old Army Encyclopedia, which I cannot, unfortunately, find anymore, and from an Army Lexicon which is quite brief), while most of the American claims are based on the statements you've made. If you feel that your opinion is misrepresented, feel free to change it. --Uriyan

With apologies in advance, it might be doing a disservice to readers of your synopsis not to let them know your account is being written from your recollections of the Army Encyclopedia and from a brief mention in an Army Lexicon.

I won't touch your wording and will adjust mine as appropriate.

You might want to see if you can get a copy of the "Preliminary Inquiry 1/67" (the Yerushalmi Report) prepared in September, 1967 and a copy of the IDF History Department Report of the attack published in 1982 as a direct result of the publication of Jim Ennes' book Assault on the Liberty. Both of those are "straight from the horse's mouth" so you won't have to depend upon the interpretation of intermediaries.

Different subject: In the history page that tells the modifications that have been made to the page it includes your screen name and a brief notation of the change you have made. I spent some time trying to find out how to do that but couldn't find the page telling me how. Could you direct me to it or tell me how? --Jmeadors

You need to special:UserLogin log in so the system knows who to assign your edits to. You need cookies enabled for this. (If you have trouble logging in, please give us details of the problem on the bug reports page.) Brion VIBBER, Thursday, March 28, 2002
Well, I'll add references when I get to the library (the Lexicon is easy but the encyclopedia might take some time). As to the two reports, I currently have neither the time nor the knowledge to locate them, but if I come across them accidentially, I'll probably study them. --Uriyan

"Don't have the time nor the knowledge" on how to conduct some basic research? I don't mean to be harsh, but perhaps you should have waited until you do have time to research the attack prior to writing an article about it. That would prevent your having to write one from your recollections of something you read some time ago.

A simple call to the IDF would be a logical first step.

I did a search of my computer files and came across an ASCII text of the Yerushalmi Report that was prepared many years ago.

I've taken the liberty of putting it up as an autoresponder. You or anyone else is free to obtain a copy of it by emailing [email protected] --Jmeadors

The reasons that I ever started seriously contributing to this article is (a) because it concerned Israel and (b) it presented the USS Liberty incident, which is ambiguous to say the very least, in a way that unambiguously threw all the blame unto Israel.
As to myself, I am only a student who is fond of history, not a historian. I have my studies, pending works, assignments (that make the Passover vacation more busy than most of the days during the rest of the year). USS Liberty is certainly an interesting area for serious researching (and when I get some spare time I will consider looking into it), but at this particular moment I can't do that.
"A simple call to the IDF": I don't call the army, I call a particular office in the army. What is its number? Where is it located? It is Passover now and most offices are closed. I did the homework I could do from the Internet; in the meanwhile, I can't do more than that.
I would gladly pass the editing to someone neutral and more knowledgeable than me now who could carry on editing impartially - but currently, I see no such person. Until one arrives (or I become one), I try to keep the article as fair as possible to both sides, considering their arguments.
By the way, could you please position the Yerushalmi report at a web server so that the article could link to it (considering copyright issues)? --Uriyan

I am endeavouring to obtain the name and phone number of someone you can contact in your efforts to initiate your research for the article you wrote. If I am successful I will post that information here.

The Yerushalmi Report (along with a lot of other information regarding the attack on our ship and subsequent cover-up) is available through our website at http://www.ussliberty.com -- Jmeadors

Well, first of all thank you for putting the material on your web site, could you say in what section exactly it can be found?
Secondly, it seems to me that it's better to discuss this article starting with what it is missing (as it is now) and then repairing/complementing it with research, not the other way around. Which parts, do you think, is the article missing? --Uriyan

The url for the Yerushalmi Report is http://www.ussliberty.org/excuse.txt

In that file there is a reference to a US State Department Legal Advisor's report. The url of that report is http://www.ussliberty.org/salans.txt

As to what to do with your article, I would recommend putting any further changes to the report on hiatus pending further research. You might even make a note on the article to that effect.

Once you have accumulated and closely scrutinized/analyzed a sufficient number of source documents, writing the article would be quite easy since your review of the documents would render you conversant in the various accounts that are floating around.

I have been in occasional email contact with Michael Oren (author of the New Republic article you include in your "See Also" section). I have asked Michael if he could provide the name(s) of people in the IDF you could contact to pursue your research.

Another contact you might make is with the newspaper correspondents or other media who report on IDF activities. They undoubtedly have their contacts/sources as well.

Clearly this will take time -- perhaps months -- to complete.

Please don't get overwhelmed.

After your initial contacts, most of your time will be spent on waiting for things to unfold. Then on following-up on questions you have as a result of your analysis of what has been provided.

I want to make it clear from the outset that should you decide to undertake the research I am describing that it helps us (Liberty survivors) in our efforts to ensure the actions before, during and after the attack are investigated, researched and reported as completely and as objectively as possible. -- Jmeadors

Just received email from Michael Oren with info on whom to contact at the IDF to pursue research on the USS Liberty.

He tells me, "contact Capt. Michal Yizraeli at 03-6942022. She's the officer in charge of such things at the Air Force History Branch. At the IDF History Department, there's Col. Shaul Shai at 03-569-3227." -- Jmeadors

and most Arabs

Tell me, why should anyone care what the Arabs think about the attack? It is not known of any Arab observers on the scene; in any other respect, the attack is solely a bilateral affair of Israel and the United States. Moreover, during the years the Arab media has supported a number of rather incredible theories (e.g. Protocols of the Elders of Zion), with the sole purpose of upsetting Israel. In fact, their vehement support of the "deliberate attack" theory only decreases its authenticity. --Uriyan

To Hefaistos: the USS Liberty was attacked only several hundred meters inside international waters (the Naval Court hearing states, for instance, that the Liberty had a clear view of the El-Arish mosque minarette). Moreover, the absence of ID marks on Israeli aircraft was never proven. As these aircraft were jets (moving quickly and having a large turn radius), I find it quite doubtful that either the presence or the absence of marks could be verified by anyone staying on board. Finally, I'm not sure that most crew members of the USS Liberty support the "deliberate attack" theory - I don't have much info so far, but all I managed to find so far is a site run by J. Meadors and J. Ennes, which does not even contain a guestbook. --Uriyan

Been spending a few minutes reading the Liberty article.

Notice it claims there were only two torpedoes fired from the Israeli torpedo boats.

The Israelis tell us they fired five. I believe it was in their 1982 History Department report that was prepared as a direct result of the publication of Jim Ennes' book Assault on the Liberty.

To address one point Uriyan raised in his post immediately preceeding this, every known USS Liberty survivor supports the position of the USS Liberty Veterans Association regarding the deliberateness of the attack (indeed, as voting members of the LVA they are the source of the position).

Perhaps he should modify his version of the account to reflect those facts. -- Jmeadors

First of all, my name is Uri.

Secondly, as far as I understand, the Liberty had only one hole shown here. If you claim five torpedos were fired then you've got to conclude that either the Israeli Navy was horrendously incompetent or that it didn't want them to hit the Liberty - and both points contradict what you're trying to prove.

Thirdly, while I've not seen a list of members or a guestbook at the site, I'll take your word for it and update the page accordingly.

Finally, I didn't quite understand what you meant by "let's not forget their use of helo-borne assault troops". --Uri

Shortly after the air attack helicopters appeared on the scene. One hovered very close to the port wing of the bridge where I was standing at the time. I clearly saw troops in the door in battle dress with what appeared to be automatic weapons at the ready. Talking to other Liberty survivors over the years reveals that others witnessed the same.

I am not the one claiming 5 torpedoes were fired. That claim is made in the IDF 1982 History Department Report. How that fact reflects upon the professionalism of the MTB personnel is for the reader to decide.

Since you are interested in researching the USS Liberty could you contact the IDF and ask that they release to you a complete set of the gunsight photos their aircraft took? In their 1982 version they included a couple of photos clearly selected to support their position. A review of all of the photos may reveal something else.

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors [email protected] -- Jmeadors

Uri,

I notice you posted the dimensions and other specifics of the Liberty.

Could you post the same information for the el Quseir as well? I'm sure readers would find that information interesting and useful.

Also, for those of us who live in countries that have not yet moved to the metric system could you post the statistics in feet and inches as well?

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
[email protected]
Jmeadors 14:51 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Joe,

First of all I'd like to remark that I do not currently engage in research regarding the USS Liberty, nor do I plan it for the nearest future. I do not fully dismiss that opportunity in the long run, however.

As to the subject:

  • As to the number of torpedos: it does sound very odd to me - the fact that only 1 out of 5 hit can't be explained by plain incompetence, particularly considering the ship's speed. So I can only persume that the report is wrong in that point. By the way, I couldn't locate in the Internet any info regarding the type of the boats or the torpedos.
  • This is the first time I've heard about the claim about helicopters. Judging by what you write, these are not the helicopters that brought the American attaché to the scene, and are mentioned in the Navy Court hearing. In what direction have they flown? At what time? (by the way, I'm yet to see a coherent chronology of the event). Is it the same helicopter as seen here? Also, it seems to me that most units that could have been landed from helicopters at the time have been verifiably engaged elsewhere. As I'm not an expert in IDF's order of battle in 1967, I can't be more specific.
  • It was not me who posted the details about USS Liberty's size. If you think the information about El-Quseir is relevant, feel free to add it. However, in that case one will also have to discuss to what extent the pilots could have measured that size. This seems to me like a very moot point, which would only lengthen the article without actually providing data in either way.

--Uri

Will whoever wrote the claim that "It is accepted by the majority of historians world-wide that these claims constitute a conspiracy theory" please cite your source.

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
[email protected]
Jmeadors 23:00 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

Would the person who posted the following please provide your source authority to support what was posted?

"Call for ID: Israel claims to have called the ship on radio several times without receiving an answer while the Americans deny ever receiving a call for identification."

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
[email protected]
Jmeadors 15:06 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

This is an open request to the person who wrote:

"ten reports by the United States, have studied the incident"

or to anyone who subscribes to that position.

Were any of the above referenced reports prepared as a result of an investigation of the attack itself?

Were any of the reports based upon original evidence or just a rehash of already existing evidence?

Which USS Liberty survivors testified before the groups or organizations who collected evidence and testimony during the collection and investigation phase of their inquiry?

Lastly, have you actually read the reports themselves or are you relying upon what others have claimed was the subject matter of and included in the reports?

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
[email protected]
Jmeadors 18:08 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Joe,

You could save space by asking all questions at once. Also, I must wonder why you write "open requests". We're not having a debate here. We're writing an article. If you have opinions you feel you could add, do so, just make sure you prefix it with "USS Liberty's survivors claim that...".

  1. As to the historians: most (serious) historical books devoted to the Six-Days War safely list the attack on the USS Liberty as an accident, and elaborate no further. There are only several books that dispute this position; of them, most are not proffessional research-grade. I think this would qualify as a majority.
  2. Call for ID: It is listed in numerous sources, e.g. the Yerushalmi Report.
  3. Ten reports: your opinion that they're were not thorough, partial, politically dictated etc. is presented. If you feel the information is sufficiently important, add it to the article - but also remember that the article gets harder to read as it grows in size.

As to your editing

  • If you have something to add, add it. Don't write "comments".
  • The phrase "although there can be no certainty even as to that." meant the aircraft ID, not the napalm.
  • The question of the markings is disputed. Please be so kind as to treat it like that. The same goes to the rest of the disputed incidents.
  • The article provides the reader with ample clues to figure out the undisputed fact that Liberty was a horrible place to be in in the afternoon hours of June 8th. However, this is not the main subject of the article.
  • The existence of 3 Israeli reports is not under doubt, I hope.
  • I integrated some of your comments into the text.

Sincerely yours, Uri

[Clarification: I never sent "AA" to the torpedo boats as they approached the ship. A number of Israeli reports claim that "AA" means "identify yourself." It does not. Quite the contrary, the ship initiating the signal would be required to transmit her visual call sign first once visual communications had been established. Jmeadors 15:01 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]

[Clarification: In their 1982 Report the IDF History Department claims the attacking aircraft performed a series of low and slow identification runs over the Liberty immediately prior to commencing their attack. They claim that some of those flights were directly over the ship at an altitude of 500 feet. Proffered testimony of USS Liberty crewmen who were topside at the time (including myself) claim that no such identification runs were made at any time by the attacking aircraft. Indeed, should the US government ever deem it appropriate to actually investigate the attack their testimony will be that when the attacking aircraft arrived on the scene they flew very low up the starboard side of the Liberty and turned left to travel across the bow of the ship. When the aircraft arrived almost dead ahead of the ship they turned sharply left and commenced their straffing runs. I was on the Signal Bridge at the time this was happening. Jmeadors 17:23 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]

[Clarification: According to the Office of the US Navy Judge Advocate General the USNavy's Court of Inquiry did not investigate the attack so inclusion of the report of that inquiry in a list of reports allegedly into the attack is inappropriate. Jmeadors 17:42 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]

[Clarification: It is not "some" who claim that Lloyd Painter's testimony has been removed from the official record -- it is Lloyd himself. He has told the story many times and has asked the USNavy why his testimony was removed. No reason has been forthcoming. Jmeadors 17:51 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]

[Clarification: The paragraph above implies the Liberty had been steaming west from Israel for the 24 hours immediately preceding the attack. Not so. We had been steaming in a southwesterly direction since about 9am and had not gotten closer than about 25 miles to the coast of Israel. When attacked we were some 77 miles from Ashdod. Jmeadors 20:46 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)]

Joe, please be so kind as not to take over the article. In particular, you could separate the existence of 13 documents and your criticism regarding them. Both are legitimate within the article, but not within the same paragraph.

Also, I remove this:

"There is a rare extract from a radio exchange between air control and Israeli pilots on the fourth day of the Six Day War, showing that the Israelis did realize that the ship they were bombing was the American USS Liberty, but still went on to attack it."

That's simply hearsay, which can't be included in a reasonable article. If anyone with a copy of the book could type in the intercept (in the article, with a discussion following and not post scriptum), that would be appreciated.

  • Why is there controversy in the first place: Number one on the list of things controversal about the USS Liberty is why is the attack controversial in the first place? If the attack has been the subject of some 10 US investigations why are there any questions remaining outstanding at all? Surely all of the items listed here are very basic and would be included in even a rudimentary investigation. Do you think, perhaps, if someone were to actually read the reports they claim were of the attack would find out that they weren't investigations of the attack at all?

That's a very flawed argument. There are numerous heavily disputed issues known to humanity: the existence of aliens, who killed JFK, why in general history went this way and not other. The existence of contradicting evidence does not indicate malice. --Uri

Uri,

While I'm not acknowledging for a minute that you are in a position to make any rules or demands as to what is or is not posted in the article (because you're not) I took the liberty of applying your "no heresay" rule and deleted all references to the unsubstanted and unprovable claim that there were 10 US government investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty.

Warmest regards,

Joe

Joe,

I'm less than delighted that this discussion has developed into a personal vendetta. If anything, it testifies to your own disadvantage. Is silencing your opponents your way of proving your case? Are you omniscient? Has it ever occured to you that your anger prevents you from seeing some things? Do you understand that this forum is not your personal soapbox?

As to the 10 committees of investigation: you yourself have named them. Denying their existence is ludicrous and childish. Does your universe exist only from the thing that you approve of? Do things that you don't like disappear magically?

Joe,

What you did stands against community standards. It was not what you wrote, but how. I think it cannot persist. Someone has to keep the article balanced.

I call upon all administrators visiting this page to lock the it from being edited, until a more comprehensive solution is reached. I would appreciate it being reverted to the version before Joe's last batch of "edits" which amount to vandalizm, although it could wait. I'm waiting to hear your opinion about this situation.

Sincerely yours,

--Uri

Uri,

No one is disputing the existence of the reports to which you refer.

What is in dispute is the subject of the investigations that support those reports.

Some claim they were investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty yet when asked to prove their position they are unable or unwilling to do so.

You are apparently a member of that camp.

You have obviously not taken the time to read the testimony and evidence that supports those reports. I -- and many others -- have. They are not investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty. The United States Navy Judge Advocate General has even gone to the extent of publicly stating that the USNavy Court of Inquiry that they conducted did not include an investigation of the attack in their inquiry.

I posted a note in the article to that effect and you removed it. For whatever reason you don't want readers of the article to know that fact.

It is even our position that the Yerushalmi Report is merely a work of fiction which is not supported by any testimony or evidence. Have you had occasion to read the evidence and testimony that supports the Yerushalmi Report. I think not. Same with the IDF History Department's 1982 Report. Show us the evidence and testimony that report is based upon. I think you will find there is none.

You admit you know very little about the attack on the USS Liberty yet you continue to present the Israeli side as fact while anything I attempt to post is changed to state that I am the only one claiming it or that what I post is merely "allegations" or are things that I claim to be true.

I've been researching the USS Liberty attack for over 20 years. I'm in daily contact with other survivors who have done more research than I.

Yet, rather than take advantage of the massive amounts of first hand accounts and first hand research at your disposal, you take issue with anything I do in an attempt to more clearly and correctly reflect what happened to us on that day.

It is obvious you are biased toward telling the Israeli version of events. I don't have a problem with that as long as you clearly identify it as such. What I do have a problem with is your demanding that we, survivors, tacitly agree with what you claim happened to us on that day when in many instances it bears no resemblance to the truth.

And please don't for a minute think that I am writing out of anger or rage. That went by the board many many years ago. I simply want an article in Wikipedia to reflect what happened to us on June 8, 1967. Not some biased, whitewashed article that it appears you are interested in producing.

And, yes. If you continue to present biased, slanted information I will do everything I can do to ensure the information presented is changed in such a way to more clearly reflect the truth of what happened.

Warmest regards,

Joe

Joe,

I've copied your mesage so I might answer it point-by-point.

No one is disputing the existence of the reports to which you refer.

It was actually you that mentioned them first

What is in dispute is the subject of the investigations that support those reports.

Some claim they were investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty yet when asked to prove their position they are unable or unwilling to do so.

Again, it was you who claimed those were reports about the USS Liberty. Or were they discussing the implications of the Vietnam war? If I was misled, I was misled by you.

You are apparently a member of that camp.

The reports that I've read clearly amount to investigations. No, not full investigations. Yes, they provide important facts and quotes to reach a certain conclusion.

You have obviously not taken the time to read the testimony and evidence that supports those reports. I -- and many others -- have. They are not investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty. The United States Navy Judge Advocate General has even gone to the extent of publicly stating that the USNavy Court of Inquiry that they conducted did not include an investigation of the attack in their inquiry.

The Navy Court went to great length to investigate the actions of the ship, and of the Israeli forces, as observed by the ship. Whether it was all true or a coverup is a separate debate. It certainly does have a very clear bottom line.

I posted a note in the article to that effect and you removed it. For whatever reason you don't want readers of the article to know that fact.

I actually did place a note that specifies what the Court was about. Have you not noticed it?

It is even our position that the Yerushalmi Report is merely a work of fiction which is not supported by any testimony or evidence. Have you had occasion to read the evidence and testimony that supports the Yerushalmi Report. I think not. Same with the IDF History Department's 1982 Report. Show us the evidence and testimony that report is based upon. I think you will find there is none.

I have read the Yerushalmi report (which contains statements by participants), as well as other pieces of evidence (yes, evidence. As you might imagine IDF veterans leave notes from time to time, which mention, inter alia, the Liberty incident).

You admit you know very little about the attack on the USS Liberty yet you continue to present the Israeli side as fact while anything I attempt to post is changed to state that I am the only one claiming it or that what I post is merely "allegations" or are things that I claim to be true.

I do not present the Israeli side as fact. If you notice, most points of controversy have clear Israel/US separation; the rest is grounded to (relatively) undisputed facts.

I've been researching the USS Liberty attack for over 20 years. I'm in daily contact with other survivors who have done more research than I.

I find one thing queer in the line you're trying to pass along: how come you haven't bothered to look up the Israeli side of things? Obviously if you were so concerned with the truth (as opposed to your perception of it), you would have bothered to find some information about the IDF's part (beyond the reports! serious investigation begins, rather than ends, with them). Why didn't you put together the information that is available through open sources. For instance, it is definitely within your grasp to name the unit that could have been landed on the Liberty via helicopters. Yet you have not done it, to this date.

Yet, rather than take advantage of the massive amounts of first hand accounts and first hand research at your disposal, you take issue with anything I do in an attempt to more clearly and correctly reflect what happened to us on that day.

Your writing has never been a coherent historical text. Had it occured to you that quoting from the cover of a book (regarding the airplane communications) is not good evidence? Had it occured to you that your evidence is at times contradictory (example: you spoke of international frequency jamming, but the site of another survivor claims that people in Italy have heard the radio broadcasts of the Liberty)? Did you even mention the standard armament of an Israeli torpedo boat - which is a crucial piece of knowledge, yet nobody on the Internet has bothered to display it? Why do you insist upon claiming that the existence of controversy is anyhow a proof of the Israeli malice?

It is obvious you are biased toward telling the Israeli version of events. I don't have a problem with that as long as you clearly identify it as such. What I do have a problem with is your demanding that we, survivors, tacitly agree with what you claim happened to us on that day when in many instances it bears no resemblance to the truth.

Of course I am biased, to a certain extent, but I have made no such demand. I ask for only two things, and two things alone: that you don't declare your interpretation of the events as the only possible view, and that you don't use fallacious arguments.

And please don't for a minute think that I am writing out of anger or rage. That went by the board many many years ago. I simply want an article in Wikipedia to reflect what happened to us on June 8, 1967. Not some biased, whitewashed article that it appears you are interested in producing.

And what happened on June 8, 1967? The ship of "you, survivors" - as you yourself write! - was burnt and cannon-strafed and torpedoed and machine-gunned but can you honestly say that you know the whole truth? Was it written on the bullets that they were sent in malice? Do you really allow for the benefit of doubt?

And, yes. If you continue to present biased, slanted information I will do everything I can do to ensure the information presented is changed in such a way to more clearly reflect the truth of what happened.

Are you sure you know that truth? --Uri

Uri,

It was actually you that mentioned them first
Again, it was you who claimed those were reports about the USS Liberty.

When I arrived on the scene I noted that in the USS Liberty article reference was made to the reports but there wasn't a list provided. Since I had a list of the Reports being discussed I provided them. To NOT provide the list when I had access to it would have been improper since this is an article in an Encyclopedia.

It is not necessary for me to agree with the information I provide else I would not have provided the hyperlinks to Capt. A. Jay Cristol's book which gives people the opportunity of purchasing a copy of his work for themselves. NOT to provide that link when I had it readily available would be doing a disservice to the readers of the article.

The reports that I've read clearly amount to investigations.

Nobody is disputing the fact that they amount to investigations. What they are NOT is investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty. Merely mentioning the attack on the USS Liberty in passing does not make them investigations of the attack itself.

The Navy Court went to great length to investigate the actions of the ship, and of the Israeli forces, as observed by the ship.

Perhaps you are unaware of a letter from the Office of the USNavy Judge Advocate General which states quite clearly that that is not the case.

That letter (dated September 1, 1989 to Senator Alan Cranston stated, "The Navy Court of Inquiry's investigation focused on the U.S. military communication problems prior to the attack and the heroic efforts of LIBERTY's crew in controlling damage during the aftermath."

They did NOT investigate the attack.

I have read the Yerushalmi report

As have I.

What I have NOT been able to read is the evidence and testimony used in the preparation of that report.

Have you?

I have also read the IDF History Department's 1982 Report which was prepared as a direct result of the publication of "Assault on the Liberty" which takes the very same evidence and testimony that is allegedly the basis for the Yerushalmi Report and comes up with a different result.

how come you haven't bothered to look up the Israeli side of things?

I haven't? I posted the name and phone number of an IDF spokesperson with a request that you call the lady and ask for information from the IDF. If you will look above this message in the TALK section of the USS Liberty article you will find the message to which I refer.

For instance, it is definitely within your grasp to name the unit that could have been landed on the Liberty via helicopters.

I haven't provided that information because I don't know it. Perhaps a call by you to the IDF spokesperson would result in their providing that information to you.

While you have them on the phone could you ask that they provide to you a copy of the evidence and testimony that support the Yerushalmi Report and the 1982 IDF History Department Report?

Would you also ask that they provide you with a complete set of gunsight photos? In the 1982 version they included a couple of photos that were apparently carefully selected to support their position.

And, would you ask that they provide you with a complete set of audio tapes of the pilots conversations?

We've been trying to get copies of all of this information literally for decades but for reasons as yet unexplained the Israeli Defense Forces are unwilling to release it to us.

Since I provided the name and phone number of the IDF spokesperson to which to make the request some time ago I was hoping that someone (you?) would have had the time to give her a call. Apparently not.

you spoke of international frequency jamming, but the site of another survivor claims that people in Italy have heard the radio broadcasts of the Liberty

Actually the jamming was on both USNavy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies. (I'll let readers opine for themselves why you left out the part about USNavy Tactical Frequencies).

That jamming was witnessed by USS Liberty radiomen including Rocky Sturman.

If you were familiar with the Liberty story you would know that we got through to the Sixth Fleet by using an antenna that had been taken out of service prior to the attack and on a frequency that was little used.

I understand the radio broadcasts you refer to might have been the conversations between the pilots and their base which we understand were heard by US listening posts in Germany and Morrocco. Not sure about any stations in Italy but I'll check.

but can you honestly say that you know the whole truth

Heavens No!

But one would think that had the attack been investated so many times that all of the questions would have been answered.

But it wasn't.

And they haven't

That's why we're actively advocating for a complete and comprehensive public Congressional investigation of the attack.

Was it written on the bullets that they were sent in malice?

Well, they sure weren't sent as a love token.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

Hopefully someone's curiousity will be tweaked enough to make that call to the IDF spokesperson.

Warmest regards,

Joe

Joe,

When I arrived on the scene I noted that in the USS Liberty article reference was made to the reports but there wasn't a list provided. Since I had a list of the Reports being discussed I provided them. To NOT provide the list when I had access to it would have been improper since this is an article in an Encyclopedia.

What I'm saying is that you were the person to name them as reports regarding the USS Liberty. The wording was basically yours, from day one.

It is not necessary for me to agree with the information I provide else I would not have provided the hyperlinks to Capt. A. Jay Cristol's book which gives people the opportunity of purchasing a copy of his work for themselves. NOT to provide that link when I had it readily available would be doing a disservice to the readers of the article.

It was me who had added the link to the article.

Nobody is disputing the fact that they amount to investigations. What they are NOT is investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty. Merely mentioning the attack on the USS Liberty in passing does not make them investigations of the attack itself.

They reach a bottom line or do they not? If they mention USS Liberty in passing (as many books about the Six-Day War at large do) they're not about it. If they devote pages to bringing up or reconsidering evidence, they can and should be considered investigation.

They did NOT investigate the attack.

We've been trying to get copies of all of this information literally for decades but for reasons as yet unexplained the Israeli Defense Forces are unwilling to release it to us.

I find it peculiar that you have been looking this information, and yet haven't bothered to look up the open sources that have been piling up for years now. Let's persume you don't have access to the American recordings of communications between the Israeli jets and their bases (why don't they release it as well? And also, ask them for some Vietnam war air photos - they can't hurt anyone now!). Fine. But it was definitely within your grasp to look up myriads of other details, and build a solid theory. But in fact, your additions to the article (and your site, I might add) barely speak about the circumstances of the case. They focus so exclusively on the attack that a casual reader might notice think wasn't a war going on around that place.

Actually the jamming was on both USNavy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies. (I'll let readers opine for themselves why you left out the part about USNavy Tactical Frequencies).

I didn't specify which frequencies were jammed. But did they, or did they not, hear it in Italy?

That jamming was witnessed by USS Liberty radiomen including Rocky Sturman.

If you were familiar with the Liberty story you would know that we got through to the Sixth Fleet by using an antenna that had been taken out of service prior to the attack and on a frequency that was little used.

I understand the radio broadcasts you refer to might have been the conversations between the pilots and their base which we understand were heard by US listening posts in Germany and Morrocco. Not sure about any stations in Italy but I'll check.

I believe I find this info on a crewman's site, possibly belonging to Rocky Sturman himself. And the site said that it was USS Liberty calling the boats, not the request for assistance.
but can you honestly say that you know the whole truth

Heavens No!

Yet you sound as if you had reached a conclusion. And yet, you have not - admittedly! - looked for (and accordingly, found) much significant evidence about the most important part of your accusation - the Israeli authorities' alleged premeditation of the strike. Looking at ussliberty.com - you certainly speak a lot about statesman A's reaction, statesman B's complicity, participant C's "excuse" - but it fails to discuss almost completely the events themselves. It doesn't include a chronology, with various witness testimonies, vessel profiles; it doesn't mention logs of meetings between Israeli officials - information open for decades now.

But one would think that had the attack been investated so many times that all of the questions would have been answered.

Has JFK's death been deciphered of late? You have as many versions of a historical event as the number of people participating in it.

Well, they sure weren't sent as a love token.

Friendly bullets hurt as much as hostile ones.

Joe,

I am not presently going to call the IDF History department. I have neither the time nor the skills to do so currently. As I wrote above, I do not reject this opportunity entirely for the future. If I come accross any relevant information (and considering the fact that Middle Eastern history is a hobby of mine, this is quite possible), I will post it to the article.

Could you please answer my points of criticism in my previous letter? They're important for continuing work on the article. In particular, I can find no imaginable way to treat a book's cover as worthwhile historical evidence.

Finally, I wanted to ask you: are you not upset by the fact that the memory of USS Liberty is so often abused in anti-Semitic circles? --Uri

Uri,

Let me know if I understand the situation and your position correctly.

You either originated the USS Liberty article on Wikipedia or were modifying it within about 90 minutes of its appearance in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia knowing full well that the preparation of such an article that would be in concert with Wikipedia guidelines would require a considerable amount of time and effort to properly research and document the article.

You live virtually -- perhaps literally -- in the shadow of what could very well be the largest and best repository of USS Liberty information in the world.

The information at that source could very well prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Israeli version is correct.

That source could be willing to release to you copies of all of the audiotapes of the pilots conversations proving that they WERE confused as to the correct identification of the ship they were attacking and that the attacking aircraft conducted a series of low and slow circuits of the ship with the specific purpose of identification immediately prior to their commencing the attack.

That source could be willing to release to you copies of all of the gunsight photos confirming their claim that no flag was flying.

That source could be willing to release to you audiotapes of the conversations of the MTB personnel proving that they did not deliberately machine gun our life rafts in the water and that they offered assistance immediately upon termination of hostilities rather than leaving the scene and returning some 90 minutes later with an offer of assistance.

That source could be willing to release to you the evidence and testimony that supports the claims made in the Preliminary Inquiry 1/67 (Yerushalmi Report) as well as the IDF History Department's 1982 Report.

But you aren't going to call them because in the past year since you've been working on the article you haven't found the time to do so or you haven't had a chance to find out how to do it?

It's actually very simple.

All you have to do is call the spokesperson whose name and number I provided and tell them what information you are seeking. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to let you know what form that request must be in.

What's that take? Five minutes if you speak slowly.

What's the upside?

You get to be the one who proves to the world once and for all that we're just a bunch of liars.

What's the downside?

You get to be the one who proves to the world that the IDF is.

Willing to take that chance?

We are.

Have been from the beginning.

Are you?

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
Vice President
USS Liberty Veterans Association
[email protected]
Jmeadors 17:25 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)

Joe,

I think you have a severe misunderstanding of my part in the process of editing the article. Much of my work on it was aimed at providing counter-points to your statements, so to prevent the article from becoming the horrendously biased thing that you have wanted to install from day one.

I consider the question of whether I'll carry out independent research regarding the USS Liberty to be separate from the editing Wikipedia article. Furthermore, it not correlated in any way with my numerous complaints regarding what you were doing to the article. By the way, would you mind address them?

There's a text regarding the Liberty in the IDF Encyclopedia: Navy (it is perhaps based on the 1982 History Department work, although I'm not sure). It also provides a list of features by which the Liberty could have been confused with the El-Quseir, as well a narrative by Micha Limor (with which, I suspect you might be acquainted). I intend to include these details in the article.

Sincerely yours,

--Uri

Well, I read a bit and added a brief summary. I tried hard not to take sides but just say that A said X, B said Y, and C said Z. However, I might be biased because I read the statement by Admiral Moorer [1] which sides with the position of Joe Meadors. Moorer has links to my own church, the Unification Church -- which inspired or indirectly sponsored some conservative or right-wing organizations Moorer was in -- and if I were a judge I would probably have to recuse myself. --Ed Poor 21:25 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)

The most common explanation for the attack was a desire to prevent the U.S. to gain information about Israel's attack on the Golan Heights, which President Johnson opposed. It is accepted by the majority of historians world-wide that this is an open issue. A more detailed discussion follows.

First of all, the majority of historians world-wide agree that the USS Liberty attack was an accident. Secondly, it has been resolved in 1997 (opening of archive documents) that Israel notified the United States about its plans prior to the attack, not even mentioning the impossibility of covering up such an event from the enormous effort the American intelligence must have invested into studying the war. I reverted the old version. --Uri

the majority of historians world-wide agree that the USS Liberty attack was an accident

Quite a sweeping statement.

Can you substantiate that?

FYI, I have emailed Michael Oren to find out if he has someone in his circle of friends who would be willing to contact the IDF on our behalf.

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
Jmeadors 18:11 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)

Joe,

You could find an explanation to this statement above on this discussion page.

You still haven't addressed my remarks, and the article makes statements (or omissions) which, in my opinion, sound very strange to the impartial reader. Do you consider book covers a legitimate historical source? Also, I find the article lacking in the sense that it doesn't even discuss the 10 American reports, several of which have "the attack was accidential" written in their "conclusions" section. I'd like to discuss this issue before I make any changes to the article.

Sincerely yours,

Uri

Uri,

Do you consider book covers a legitimate historical source?

Depending upon its content perhaps a reflection of a legitimate historical source but not the source itself.

I'd like to discuss this issue before I make any changes to the article.

Do you have a copy of or have you read the reports?

I'd like to discuss the contents of the Yerushalmi Report (Preliminary Inquiry 1/67) but feel I cannot since to date I have been unable to obtain the documents and testimony upon which that report is based. All I can do is discuss the Report based upon facts I know to be true.

I'd like to make yet another open plea to anyone reading this message to contact the IDF with a request that they release the information that supports the Yerushalmi Report.

Warmest regards,

Joe
Jmeadors 14:28 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

What with the renewed interest in the attack on the USS Liberty as a result of Jay Cristol's recent presentations at the US Navy Museum and the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, coupled with a settling down of my professional life I've decided to reactivate the USS Liberty email discussion list being hosted by the folks at St. John's University in New York.

To read the archives, subscribe or modify your subscription you can visit http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/uss_liberty.html

You can also subscribe via email by sending an email message to [email protected] with SUBSCRIBE USS_LIBERTY <Your Name> as the text of the message.

If you have any problems, please don't hesitate to email me at [email protected]

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
Jmeadors 15:37 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

Request to Split the Page

What objections would y'all have to my splitting this page into two separate articles -- USS Liberty (AGTR-5), which would have the facts about the vessel herself (7725 tons, originally the cargo ship Simmons Victory, and so on), and Israeli Attack on USS Liberty, which would contain all the discussion and controversy regarding the events of June 8, 1967? I promise I won't alter the contents of that latter article -- I'm not qualified to have an opinion. It's currently the afternoon of February 21, 2003 -- if I don't see any vehement protests by March 1, I'll go ahead and split it. --the Epopt

It's a few days after that and it's still not split. I thought about the same thing, though, when I saw the page. The USS Pueblo article raised the same question for me, but there, the capture is more a defining event in the life of the ship, and the article is not that unweildy.
Piling on third thoughts now ... there is a standard format for describing aircraft specs. That might be a better way to tidy up technical information about the ship while keeping it in the context of the ships sea life.
Actually, something about the GER class would be very interesting.
If you do the split, you might want to look at the Navy photo site and find some images of the ship during better days. If you don't maybe I will. These tell the story of the attack well, but there were some of her before the attack that would be better suited for a general article on the ship. Of course that article should have a reference to the attack, which must navigate the same viewpoint controversies as plague this one.
This one at least needs the leads merged - they are practically the same words, and where the words are different, those differences can be described in a separate sentence in the merged lead paragraphs. JRT7 09:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
On second thought, Epopt, after having read the entire talk page and page history then having checked in on those active in the debate, I think things are stable enough here to condense what product came from the debate into an article that is readable, is not redundant, is fair to all sides and represents the Liberty as any other ship would be represented. I'm not sure it is the best approach to remove the story of a famous vessel's most famous moment to a side-bar. This was the Liberty's defining moment and, when viewed along with the capture of the Pueblo, a defining incident in the activities of the GES vessels of that era.
In a few days, I plan to work through this and make something readable, coherent and accurate, if you want to wait and see what comes of it.

JRT7 10:31, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I understand that currently there will be no change on the article due to it being disputed. I however, would like to voice my opinion on the chapter "contoversy". I find there is a strong bias in this chapter.

QUOTE:

Several books and a BBC documentary try to prove that USS Liberty was attacked on purpose. They are allegedly backed in this position by at representatives of the US intelligence community. Critics claim that many of them include incorrect assumptions and a fuzzy system of conslusion making. As examples, they bring the claim that the ship was attacked to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights (information already dispatched to the Americans), and applying a quote describing the execution of 5 Palestinian guerillas wearing Egyptian uniforms (an act allowed under rules of war) to "prove" the mass murder of 150 Egyptians.

COMMENT:

The picture until some years back of official reports and publications in general was, as i perceive it, that the Liberty was attacked by accident. Now, some years ago there emerged several books / documentations which concluded otherwise. Alright. What i have to criticise here is, that in the paragraph above this fact ist mentioned in 2.5 lines, the relativisation however takes 6 lines. Another problem i do have: while the books and documentation which present their view, are BOOKS and implying this, someone has worked on them a year or two, and compiled considerable material and spent working time on them, the belittlement of the books is based on claims, which means basically someone has at most written a short article on it. Given the already mentioned line ratio between the two positions, the different weight of the statements simply due to their elaboration makes the already more than unequal ratio even worse.


QUOTE:

Israeli officials and Jewish organizations world-wide have complained that these materials are often used as a pretext for anti-Semitic declarations and acts. They claim that these reviews often do not give Israel the benefit of the doubt, turning this extremely ambiguous history into a circus for Israel-bashing. Meadors and Ennes have denied an anti-Semitic pretext in their work, and express sharp disapproval at the use of the USS Liberty incident in anti-Semitic contexts.

COMMENT:

First of all, lets notice again the ration between the positions which is 4:2.

Now, concerning the accusation of anti-semitism: after 6 million jews died due to a policy of antisemitism fulfilled to its ultimate extent, i would recommend to everyone to use the accusation of anti-semitism only with utmost care. This is not to be taken lightly at all. The mentioning of anti-semitism is very much likely to put the accused in a defensive position, as we all know what anti-semitism resulted in, some 60 years ago. For this is such an heavy accusation, i have to condemn even the mentioning of this accusation here in this article. This holds true even more, as Ennes and Meadors are not even accused of anti-semitism directly - the allegation made towards them is that OTHERS are using the material in an antisemitic way. If so, it is certainly not to account to them, what others are doing with material (and experiences !) they collected.

To put it in the NRA-way: It's not guns who are killing, people do kill.

Finally i would like to bring to you attention, that in the positions depicted here, "Israeli officials" and "Jewish organizations world-wide" are standing against [only] "Meadors and Ennes" - not really a depiction of the reality, as i do believe, that it is certainly not only "Meadors and Ennnes" who take this view.

CHris


Strong objection to the article's statement that Various theories are presented at times as to why they claim that Israel carried out this action; one theory was that Israel was trying to get the U.S. involved in the conflict on Israel's side, by convincing the U.S. that Egypt was the aggressor. It is accepted by the majority of historians world-wide that these claims are unsubstantiated.. The second statement is an opinion masqerading as a fact: no survey of 'historians worldwide' is offered to substantiate the claim that most of them believe that the attack was not deliberate.


(Also, it might be useful to examine the Lavon Affair as a precedent for exactly this sort of attack on US interests by Israel, in order to taint the Egyptians.)

The article should present claims pro and con, with little or no editorialising. The pro and con claims should come from different people to prevent bias.

Jon


As noted above, I'm eyeing this article with some reorganization in mind. I'm refreshing my recollection of sources on the incident. It comes to mind that the allegations that Israel intentionally attacked the ship to block the ships involvement in the war was advanced by at least one author who was documenting US actions that were adverse to Israeli interests.

By the reasoning offered in Secret War Against the Jews, the author suggests NSA employees in the Liberty's radio room were providing specific real time order of battle data to Britian, who was in turn supplying it to Egypt. The book asserts it was not to block American knowledge of taking of the Golan Heights, nor to cover up atrocities, but to stop intelligence leaks that could have cost Israel the war.

The author says Israeli and Egyptian tanks were matched across a line in the Sanai that Israel could hold but could not reinforce. If Egypt could locate and exploit a weakness in that line, they could gain tactical advantage and perhaps advance into Israel.

The author says that the Nixon administration was divided in its support for Israel during the war, and that after Israel stopped radio transmissions from the Liberty, pro-Israel factions led by Henry Kissenger secured some 4,000 TOW missles for Israel that let generals use infantry to reinforce their tank line. Israel's army prevailed. The author asserts machine guns were used to drive sailors below deck before napalm was used to destroy antenna arrays. He suggested the torpedo struck in the vicinity of a radio room.

The Pueblo and Liberty were apparently GES ships shared by the Navy and the NSA. NSA radio operators had boarded the ship a few days or hours before the attack - whether their presence was part of the routine change of command or was a unique response to the war is one of the more salient questions arising from the matter.

The other poorly represented arguments might be those explaining the reaction within Israel. My recollection is the internal investigation came down to who was in the war room mainting boards detailing who was where in proximity to the battle field. There ended up being some debate over a shift change and some exchange of information between shifts, per my recollection.

These notes are posted here in the event anyone else can add more detail.

JRT7 22:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I can add more detail. Johnson was President when Liberty and later Pueblo were attacked. I believe Kissinger was still teaching at Havard. The author you quoted was confusing the Yom Kippur War and the Six Day War.
More likely that I have confused the matter in my recollection. That would be from "Secret War Against the Jews" JRT7 07:04, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Pueblo had also been at sea for about a month before the attack. Joe can tell you more, but the NSA radio operators had been on the Liberty the entire time as I understand it. Pueblo as well. Stargoat 17:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is easy enough to research. It was reported omewhere - I thought it was from Joe's book - that two radio operators boarded the ship before the attack. Body of Secrets says both of the ships were shared Navy/NSA assets, operated by each organization alternately from month to month. I've never heard the crews response to either "Body of Secrets" or "Secret War Against..." so maybe it is about time for somebody to flag Joe or some of his colleagues back to this page for some more updates, especially in regard to those sources. JRT7!~

I don't know anything about anything about what's going on here, but I just added Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Israel Deliberately Attacked US Ship to the external links. jengod 21:43, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

This page should be moved to USS Liberty incident

"Attack" is very much POV. Neutralitytalk 16:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wow. I've never heard of a ship being incidented before. Stargoat 16:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Heh. But in all seriousness, "attack" implies it was deliberate, which is very much in dispute. Neutralitytalk 16:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That the ship was attacked is beyond doubt. That it was attacked by the Israelis is also beyond doubt. Please move the article back. Mintguy (T) 18:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That it was attacked by Israelis is not questioned, but that doesn't make the terminology neutral. "USS Liberty Incident" is how it is commonly referred to. "Israeli attack on USS Liberty" is inflammatory. The new name is more NPOV. Jayjg 18:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, so it appears, I just checked before you posted the above. I withdraw the request. Mintguy (T)
The terminology is neutral. The ship was attacked. It's called an attack. What's adding a POV is calling the article an incident. Now put it back. Stargoat 18:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the term for this incident, is, in fact, the "USS Liberty Incident". That is the way it is referred to by historians and in most serious sources. Referring to it as the "Israeli attack on USS Liberty" is inflammatory; one doesn't refer to the Mayagüez incident as the Korean attack on the SS Mayagüez, or the General Sherman Incident as the Korean attack on the General Sherman or the Mukden Incident as the Japanese attack on the Mukden railroad or the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) as the Libyan attack on US F-14 Tomcats though they are factual as well. Jayjg 19:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How long before we'll have to rename articles to "Iraq incident" and "Vietnam incident" ? - pir 23:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Excellent point; Iraq and Vietnam were wars that lasted months or years. Incidents are generally of much briefer duration, usually less than a day. In any event, common usage is and always has been "USS Liberty Incident"; if the common usage for the Vietnam war ever becomes "Vietnam incident" your question might become more relevant. Jayjg 03:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Attack" is perfectly NPOV. That the ship was attacked is not in dispute. If one wants to claim the motive for the attack was misguided or accidental, that's an entirely different matter, but the word owes to the objective fact an attack was made, with intent to injure or sink. Nobody pulled any triggers accidentally here. 65.247.35.18 08:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I favor using "incident" rather than "attack" in the article's title because I see an attack as being only one part of an incident. I figure the attack started as soon as bullets and torpedos were in motion and ended when the ships moved off; the incident, however, started the day before with flyovers, and continues to be debated today. The incident includes the motives and repercussions of the attack. - Brian Kendig 22:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

USS Liberty Survivors letter

Why is this letter here? What does it add that is not already in the article? Jayjg 17:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because Meadows was involved in a NPOV with apologists like yourself. Now put the article back. Stargoat 18:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't notice the question I asked. I'll repeat: Why is this letter here? What does it add that is not already in the article?
P.S. I haven't moved anything. Jayjg 19:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, regardless of whether it adds anything or not, the actual letter belongs on the talk page, like anything else written in response to an article. If it constitutes a valuable external source, then it could also be added to the list of external links. I do not recall ever seeing a Wikiedia article containing anything like that letter. 217.132.173.201 20:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That makes sense to me as well; I also haven't seen anything like it in other articles. The Liberty survivors organization is already linked to in the article, and the head of the organization actually created a fair bit of the information in the article itself. Jayjg 03:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there anyone who can put forward any valid reason to include this letter in the article? Jayjg 02:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Removing it will lead to an edit war. It was also the solution of a previous such problem. It stays. Stargoat 04:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why will removing it lead to an edit war? What previous problem did it solve? I'm looking for a legitimate rationale, not bald assertions. Jayjg 04:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the archives. Stargoat 14:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer to this, too, and I don't know what archives you're talking about. Is there an archive of older items which have been removed from this Talk page? The letter duplicates some information above it in the article, and it does not befit an article to include questions such as "One has to ask why is there controversy in the first place?", so I feel the letter must be removed and any facts from it be integrated into the rest of the article if they're not already present. It would be far better if the veterans association would put this letter on their site so the article could link to it. - Brian Kendig 19:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with every point you have made here, Brian. It appears to have first been inserted on 16:08, 26 Mar 2002 by the anonymous editor 67.209.122.99, who is probably Joe Meadors, and was subsequently expanded by Joe Meadors in October. In addition to not being able to find any Talk: archives for this article, I've read this entire Talk: page more than once and seen no discussion about the inclusion of a letter. As best as I can reconstruct events, Joe wasn't pleased with the articles NPOV presentation, and felt the need to include a special section outlining the "pure" POV of the Veteran's association (including a number of items discussed in the Talk: pages), unadulterated by any NPOV. Jayjg 21:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Two POVs, each using parallel structure, is NPOV

Surviving crew members, as well as several Western observers, assert that the attack was premeditated and deliberate: i.e., that Israel knew the ship was American.
Israel maintains, and the US government has formally and publicly accepted, that the incident was entirely due to error: i.e., Israeli forces misidentified the ship at various stages as a Russian intelligence ship providing information to the Arabs, or as an Egyptian freighter.

The structure of these two opening sentences is the same. They are clear and concise, and present both POVs on the incident. It is not NPOV to cast doubts on the Israeli and US government position, even as you are explaining it. This, in fact, was Stargoat's admitted and public intent when he reverted my edits. Jayjg 20:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your POV edits because you chose not understand the facts. There were members of the US government that had doubts as to Israel's intentions. Members of the United States government continue to hold doubts as to what really happened. Doubt should be cast because doubt exists, though Jayjg would like to deny that. Stargoat 04:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My edits (unlike your actions and comments) were in no way POV. The fact that some people hold doubts about the Israeli and US government positions is abundantly clear. In fact, the opening section and indeed the whole article outlines the many doubts that have been cast upon the official version, at great length. To claim that by adding a phrase clarifying the official US government stance I am attempting to "deny" these doubts is a Straw man argument at best, and, quite frankly, ludicrous under the circumstances. Jayjg 04:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Context

It seems to me the big piece missing in this article is some kind of context to the whole scenario of sending these poorly armed ships into international waters to intercept electronic transmissions. How many ships were involved, what did they do, why were they necessary, where did they go, what happened to them, how long did the program last? How does this fit in with other sigint gathering programs via airplane or (later) satellite, etc.? What is the overall importance of gathering such data? (It must be awfully important, because a lot of countries spent a lot of time/money/effort/lives gathering it?)

It seems like just a paragraph or two near the beginning and maybe another near the end, perhaps with many links to other articles fleshing out the full picture, would help a lot.

It seems to me that the big story here, very obscured by all the wrangling about various details, is that for a while the U.S. was sending very lightly armed ships to snuggle up as close as technically legal to various hot spots and war zones, and this practice turned out to be very, very dangerous in a variety of ways. And that brings up a couple of big questions: Are the crews of these ships going to get credit for performing what turned out to be the equivalent of dangerous wartime duty? (Certainly one of the things that rankles the crew members and helps to keep this issue alive is that the aftermath of the incident seems to devalue their service and their sacrifice . . . ). And, was the intelligence gathered by this and similar intelligence gathering operations, like intentional airspace violations and flyovers, worth the considerable risk?

The article hits a whole lot of details. How about some big picture?

(Not incidentally, it strikes me that in the big picture may lie a way towards the ultimate resolution of some of the hotly disputed points here. One can dispute whether the attack was deliberate or accidental, but no one can dispute that putting a ship in the situation the Liberty was in, opens it up to considerable possibility of attack, whether deliberate OR accidental. And regardless of what actually did happen, given the nature of the Liberty's assignment in that area, once there was an incident it is pretty much a given that there would be a coverup, cover stories, downplaying of the incident, and so on, on all sides.)

Bhugh 06:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fired with order or without?

The testimony says this:

1430 [LOG:] ONE ROUND FIRED BY MACHINE GUN 51. C.O. ORDERED HOLD FIRE. [CAPT. McGonagle:] At this time, I yelled to machine gun 51 to tell him to hold fire. I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in error. I wanted to hold fire to see if we could read the signal from the torpedo boat and perhaps avoid additional damage and personnel injuries. The man on machine gun 51 fired a short burst at the boats before he was able to understand what I was attempting to have him do.

Is that what you were referring to? Jayjg 06:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


First with order, then order was reversed. Old version did not reflect this.

[CAPT. McGonagle:] It appeared that they were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude, and since I did not have direct communication with gun control or the gun mounts, I told a man from the bridge, whose identity I do not recall, to proceed to mount 51 and take the boats under fire.

Initial version claimed that torpedo attack occurred after engagment by machine gun fire. Actually, Captain perceived torpedo attack, gave orders to defend, then ordered hold fire. Holdfire order was lost. Previous version left out initial apparent attack. Jonsmythe 07:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is noting an appearance of a "torpedo launch attitude" the same thing as perceiving a torpedo attack? Jayjg 07:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Obviously, yes. That's why McGonagle gave the initial order to engage the boats with a machine gun. Unless the rules of engagement require him to wait until the torpedoes are in the water. Note very careful use of neutral words perceive and apparent, allowing for element of judgement and interpretation. Jonsmythe 07:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Counterpunch article

Why does the first section link to [2]? The article itself makes no attempt to provide a NPOV, and it is only peripherally related to the point it is proportedly proving; that is, that it is the "only attack on a US ship that has never been investigated by Congress." Jayjg 21:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove it in my next edit unless someone else does first. - Brian Kendig 17:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracies

Statements on the possible inaccuracies from a Liberty researcher are in italics. The two sides are referred to as survivors and Israel.

I've removed the Veterans Association letter from the article, and attempted to bring some of the facts it asserts into the rest of the article. However, I've noticed that the article uses imprecise language in several important places, and it's not clear what the facts really are. Here are some of the specific issues I found. If someone could verify these, that'd be great.

  • The article says that on the day before the attack, the ship was flown over by several aircraft. Was this while it was still hundreds of miles away off the coast of Israel?

It was flown over only during the morning of the attack, not the previous day. The survivors and Israel concur on this statement (they disagree on how many times).

  • Various accounts say that the ship came to within either 13 or 14 miles off the Sinai coast - a reference would be helpful.

Both the survivors and Israel agree on 13 miles.

  • The article states that the attacking planes were armed with napalm. The Veterans letter implies that napalm was used by the ships. Which is correct?

The attacking planes were armed with napalm. Both sides agree with this, and I believe that unburned napalm goop was entered as evidence into the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry.

  • Are there any references which specify the number and type of attacking aircraft, or even make a guess at it? The article originally said "a pair of Mirage IIIs and Dassault Mysteres." The letter said "three Mirage aircraft then Mystere aircraft."

A group of Mirage aircraft and then a group of Mystere aircraft is pretty much all Israel and the survivors can agree on.

  • The article says that the captain ordered a machine gun to engage the torpedo boats, then he gave the order to hold fire, then the machine guns opened fire. Did they start firing as soon as he gave the first order, or did they wait until after he told them to hold fire?

No fire commenced until after he gave the cease fire order. One quick burst was from a manned gun mount, the other was from an unmanned gun mount (it was burning and thus cocking off ammo)

  • The article says that an American representative was notified and approached the ship by helicopter, but couldn't land or establish communications, so he left. Where did this representative come from? Why couldn't he land or at least drop down on a rope or use a megaphone to shout a message to the crew? (This article says nothing about the representative being unable to reach the ship, so I'm going with that story unless someone can provide more details.)

It was someone from the embassy, I believe. He dropped a note that said "Have you casualties?", but he was unable to get a communicated answer from the captain (they weren't sure if he was saying 3 or 30 if I recall).

  • The letter mentions that radio jamming may have been involved in the attack, but no mention is made of any messages which were attempted to be sent or which couldn't be sent due to jamming. Who failed to be able to send a message?

The Liberty, according to survivors, was unable to send a message because, according to survivors, channels specific to the U.S. Navy and the two international distress frequencies were jammed, all except for one channel (the one they used to get out the distress signals)

  • The letter said "and, let's not forget their use of helo-borne assault troops." Aerial troops are not mentioned at all in the article.

Both sides agree that two helicopters came close to the ship at approximately 1300 hours, shortly after the torpedo attack. This is established by the NSA transripts. The survivors contend that troops were aboard in battle dress, and that they did not land and finish killing everyone aboard because it was too risky because the Liberty already alerted the Sixth Fleet.

  • The letter said "The legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry has said publicly that the Court of Inquiry was a sham." If true, this deserves a reference.

This is indeed true. The reference is on the USS Liberty COI site

  • The article says, "As a result of US Florida Judge Jay Cristol lawsuit using the Freedom of Information Act..." Was Jay Cristol the judge in a state lawsuit? Who were the parties in the lawsuit, and what was the issue?

No, US Florida Judge Ahron Jay Cristol is the writer (he just so happens to be the judge) of one of the books on the incident (Israel side). He filed an FOIA with the NSA, but when they barked back, he filed a lawsuit and eventually got his desired documents (the NSA transcripts, at NSA's web site. The survivors contend that he backed off, and if he didn't, NSA may have been forced to release more documents. NSA contends that there are no more documents, while the survivors insist that there must be.

This article a large number of external links, and far too many which were only peripherally related, such as links to the Amazon.com entries on books which mentioned the incident, or a review of a movie about the incident. Wikipedia is not a links repository, so I removed the links which weren't primary news sites or didn't provide comprehensive information on the incident.

In particular, the external links section shouldn't be used to provide additional information or commentary, like this one:

  • Transcript of the US Navy Court of Inquiry report. It should be noted that this transcript has been edited by the Department of Defense prior to its being released to the public. Lt. Lloyd Painter's testimony regarding the deliberate machine gunning of the USS Liberty's life rafts by Israeli torpedo boat personnel was removed.

It would be better if this item (which I removed) could be incorporated into the article itself.

Don't just dump a link to an affidavit into the external links section - incorporate what the affidavit said into the article; explain why it's important.

Also, a bunch of the links were all to pages on ussliberty.com. I think it would be a lot better if we provided a single link to ussliberty.com, and that page provided links to all the information the site has available.

- Brian Kendig 16:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your points are valid, but it doesn't appear that you have deleted anything. Also, it might make sense to organize the links better; I can think of three groupings, those that support the "mistaken identity" view, those that support the "deliberate" view, and those that are neutral. Also, can you please respond to my point about about the link given in the opening section? Jayjg 16:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I committed my comment here on the Talk page before I committed my edits to the article; sorry 'bout that. Look again. :-) Which point about a link in the opening section? I'm looking, but I don't see the comment to which you refer. (Never mind, now I see it.) - Brian Kendig 17:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ward Boston

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

(non-admin closure) Result: No consensus. I am treating this as a non-controversial close per WP:ANRFC and WP:CLOSE. If there are any questions, comments or objections please drop me a line on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not independently notable from the USS Liberty incident. WP:ONEEVENT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As Boston's bio now stands, his notability is based on his involvement with the USS Liberty Court of Inquiry. If other notable aspects of Boston's life can be presented (i.e., notable accomplishments during Navy fighter pilot service, FBI special agent service, Navy lawyer service, or other) then the bio should not be merged. I believe the same holds true for William McGonagle's bio. Clearly, McGonagle's notability derived from being captain of USS Liberty. While he accomplished other things in life, none appear especially notable.Ken (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@Kjhalliwell: for McGonagle, IIRC Medal of Honor recipients are presumed notable. I can look it up if you need a reference to a guideline. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable presumption to me...Ken (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It's actually an essay, though it is referenced directly from WP:BIO. The essay is WP:MILPEOPLE, item #1. I do not have an opinion on Ward Boston, though; it seems like it could go either way. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
What is an essay, McGonagle's, or Boston's? -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The notability criterion that mentions the Medal of Honor is an essay. VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
One criteria listed is: "Played an important role in a significant military event." The Navy's Court of Inquiry was a military event, it was significant and Boston played an important role. So, it appears that he passes the notability test; albeit, being only one event.Ken (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to merge. Boston is not known for one event (that would be he investigating the USS Liberty attack). The second "event" is his affadavit, in which he states that he was given way too little time to do a proper investigation (one week), the court did not use many of his findings, and that his conclusion was way different from the court's findings. That was a personal action, contrary to his military status. Worth keeping. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The affidavit is not considered a second event as per WP:ONEEVENT inasmuch as going to the bathroom in that time is not considered a third event. The investigation is one event and should be merged as per policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Going to the bathroom? -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that you responded within 10 minutes to my comment supporting a merger but in the last three days you couldn't get a chance to revert this OR nonsense that the IP shoved into the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Did you read my 12:13, not to merge note? It says, "not a single event". Interesting (If I may say so myself). -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I did and I found it unconvincing. It's all about the same underlying event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
the same underlying event you say. That could delete over 90% of our wiki page I guess. Any thoughts? -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Histrionics are rarely an adequate substitute for a well reasoned argument. 1E explicitly acknowledges common sense exceptions. But this guy aint the Beatles or Lee Harvey Oswald. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Eh, Oswald is >1Event you say? -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm hard pressed to think of what else he would be famous for. But like I said 1E acknowledges common sense exceptions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
So you 1. use exceptions whenever it suits you (hey, it was you who you introduced both the Beatles and! L.H. Oswald), 2. do not grasp any contrary reasoning already written. Fine. I'm done with you and your POV approach. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It's called consensus. And for the record the Beatles are not 1E. They more than meet the standards in CREATIVE SINGER etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've identified two events. You ignoring that (is not discussing it) and then call that "consensus", by !vote counting even, is not the right way to fancy a conclusiuon. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Primary source for Israel's apology

For all interested parties, here's the primary source for Israel's apology: http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d211 Ken (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

for the record, this drive by edit looks like gaming the system. -DePiep (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Five Towns Jewish Times - article about Lyndon B. Johnson's attitute to Israel.

Five Towns Jewish Times, Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!! , Morris Smith, 11 April 2013.     ←   ZScarpia   18:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No mention of USS Liberty incident in the above article. Doubtful that it qualifies as reliable source. Ken (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The reason I listed the source here is to provide background information on Johnson's long-term support for Zionism and Israel which is not generally detailed elsewhere. You're correct that it doesn't mention the Liberty incident specifically, though it does deal with the 1967 War in a general way. As far as reliability goes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd say it's fair to assume that the newspaper the article comes from exercises the same kind of editorial oversight as others of the same size.     ←   ZScarpia   10:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
A reliable secondary source is one that contains verifiable information. The information may or may not be true, but it must be verifiable; i.e., traceable to a primary source. The article from "Five Towns" contains lots of claims and opinions, but few references or citations. Regardless, it contains no USS Liberty incident factual information (i.e., encyclopedia oriented information) within it; thus, not useful as a secondary source for content herein.Ken (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I provided a link to the source on this talkpage for background purposes.
  • I wasn't suggesting that the source is used in the article.
  • Your definition of source reliablility doesn't match that used by Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources).
    ←   ZScarpia   21:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia definition of a reliable source is intertwined (in a circular argument fashion) with the concept of verifiability. Clearly, a secondary source that misrepresents information from a primary source should not be deemed reliable. For a secondary source that contains factual statements without verifiable sources, the state of its reliability is unknown; although, some then consider an author's/publisher's established reputation as a means to determine state of reliability -- not foolproof, but a means allowed by current Wiki policy.Ken (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
A very nice description by Ken of RS degrading. I remember last year we had an editor that worked in a Tel Aviv advocacy office. The office produced press releases, a local paper (labeled "RS" here) published them, and that same editopr then used that as RS here at WP.
I also note that ZScarpia writes "in the absence of evidence to the contrary [and article is equally reliable as similar others are]". Well, that is not in WP:RS. Talking about advocacy: can ZScarpia tell what the relation is of the link with the article? Otherwise we better close this thread. -DePiep (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Close the thread: I achieved what I wanted to achieve just by posting a link to the article.
  • The relevance to the current article is that it details Johnson's long-term support for Jewish/Zionist causes, something which I have not seen detailed in other sources.
  • If I'm trying to advocate something, exactly what am I trying to advocate? Editors are free to read or ignore the linked article as they like. They are also free to make of it what they like: I haven't described what should be taken from it or how it should be interpretted.
  • Many newspapers are used as reliable sources, yet editors would struggle to demonstrate how, or whether they actually do, fact check or exercise editorial control. What it often comes down to is editors' perceptions about a particular newspaper's quality/reputation and, at the end of the day, Wikipedia policy is that source reliability is determined by consensus. As I have no intention of trying to use material from the source in the current article, I have no particular interest in establishing that the source was reliable in Wikipedia terms. What concerned me really was that the material in the source was credible. Therefore, I had a look at other articles published by the newspaper, which all appeared 'normal' to me. Therefore, when Ken made a remark about the reliability of the source, I commented that, in the absence of evidence being produced to the contrary, "I would say" that the newspaper can be expected to be as reliable as others of the same type. Hopefully you understand my argument and my position now; from the utterly shite attempt you made at representing them, I'd say that you clearly didn't before.
    ←   ZScarpia   15:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
exactly what am I trying to advocate? - I expected you to answer that. Johnson's long-term support for Jewish/Zionist causes still is not related to the topic. you understand my argument .. you clearly didn't before. - I still don't. But I did learn from Ken's post here.~-DePiep (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes or no, does your first comment contain the insinuation that I'm 'advocating' something?     ←   ZScarpia   15:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As you say, Wikipedia allows secondary source reliability to be determined by consensus. But this does not throw the verifiability test out the window. Current Wikipedia policy is that a reliable secondary source is verifiable, and that a verifiable secondary source is reliable -- regardless of original source factual validity. If a newspaper, like the New York Times, has a well-established reputation for accurately reporting factual claims, then it seems reasonable to accept it as being a reliable secondary source. But even well-regarded newspapers occasionally issue corrections or retractions, due to misrepresentation of an original source's statement(s); i.e., occasionally a published article is "unreliable." This is the nature of any secondary source, it can never be trusted to always accurately represent an original source. Thus, a truly reliable secondary source will always cite its original source(s) for purposes of verification by a diligent reader (or Wikipedia editor); albeit, simply because a secondary source cites original sources does not automatically raise it to the level of being a reliable source; i.e., a reputation for reliability is earned, not bestowed.Ken (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
[EC} I agree with much of what you've written, though, as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia policy is not that a reliable source is verifiable. However, it's very possible that, even if I had understood it correctly, policy has changed since I last had a look. Please point me at the appropriate sections if I'm in error. In my understanding, the order things go is that Wikipedia content should be verifiable, that it is verified by citing reliable sources and that what makes sources reliable is that they fulfill various criteria about such things as editorial oversight and fact checking. So, in my understanding, the reliability of sources is measured by the degree to which they fulfill the given criteria, none of which, as far as I know, have to do with whether what the sources say is verifiable. Verifiability is applied to article content (which is achieved by citing reliable sources) not sources. The variability of source reliablility gives rise to a source reliable hierarchy, with sources produced by academic publishers and doctoral theses at the top. In general, it is a requirement of such sources that they cite their own sources, so what you wrote is true in that better quality sources will allow a chain of verification to be carried out if desired. However, I don't think that policy specifies that sources that don't cite sources are necessarily not reliable sources. Otherwise, almost all newspapers could not be reliable sources. Even if reliable sources were restricted to those which cite sources, you would end up in the ironical situation that, in many cases, if you followed the chain of verification back, you would find at the head of the chain some newspaper article or other publication which you would either have to accept on faith or reject.
In the case of the article I linked to, note that I didn't make an absolute claim about it's reliability, I commented that in my opinion it's reliability could be expected to be about the same as similar publications, similar publications being, in this case, limited-circulation local newspapers (that is, sources low on the hierarchy of reliability). I'm happy to leave other editors to decide for themselves how reliable or how significant the contents of the article are. If they think the article is worthless, insignificant and irrelevant, that doesn't matter to me. The role of the Johnson administration in allegedly hushing-up the Liberty incident and preventing assistance from being given to the ship are much discussed aspects of it. That administration marked a major shift in US attitudes to Israel, with Johnson often being cited as the most pro-Israel president. The question of what underlay that is usually left unanswered. What is significant and worth thinking about to me in the linked article is that, in describing Johnson's long-term commitment to the cause of Zionism, it possibly supplies clues as to that.
    ←   ZScarpia   15:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
No doubt, my mostly objective standard of accurately representing an original source exceeds the current Wikipedia subjective standard of reputation and consensus; but, of course, a reputation is built upon accurately representing original sources.
Regarding the article you posted, I agree that it's food for thought -- only LBJ knows for certain, and he isn't talking.Ken (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Most recent developments not included.

I am not and will not be an article writer but I feel it's very important that this entire article be revamped in light of new details uncovered by Al Jazeera that place full blame on the knowing Israeli forces. There is absolutely no question remaining as to whether or not they were aware they were attacking an American ship. They did and the audio absolutely confirms it beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is also no mention of the napalm used by Israeli fighter jets.

Whoever is taking this up needs to watch the following in order to understand the seriousness of how wrong this entire article is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JRgXie2teo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.224.79 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Without commenting on the underlying question of culpability and conspiracy theories relative to the attack on the Liberty, which I am unqualified to express any opinion on, I will note two immediate problems. First Youtube is not considered a reliable source and cannot be cited in support of any controversial assertions of fact in an article. Secondly, Al Jazeera is a news agency funded by the royal family of a country that is deeply hostile to Israel and does not recognize Israel or its right to exist. This is bound to raise questions about the reliability of Al Jazeera as a source for such controversial claims. All of which means that there are going to be serious questions raised about whether this passes WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The Al Jazeera film changes nothing. The film contains several "sound bites" taken from a purported IDF recording of communications between its air controllers and pilots that occurred during the attack. Since about year 2000, several translated transcripts of the purported IDF recording have been available -- the first appearing in A.J. Cristol's book: The Liberty Incident. If you read the transcripts, you will discover that the Al Jazeera film misrepresents the purported IDF recording's content by quoting out of context, temporal misplacement, and slightly different translation; e.g., not including the word "probably" before "American." The film does NOT cite the source for its copy of the recording, but says the original recording was made by the IDF.Ken (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the article does mention napalm: "The Mirages left after expending their ammunition, and were replaced by two Dassault Mysteres armed with napalm bombs. The Mysteres released their payloads over the ship and strafed it with their cannons. Much of the ship's superstructure caught fire."Ken (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


I entirely agree that there are better sources available than the Al Jazeera article. However, I would like to point out that bias does not, of itself, make sources unreliable. Following Ad Orientem's line of argument, sources affected by pro-Israeli influences, as well as anti-Isralei ones, would have to be regarded as 'questionable'. Neutrality comes from reporting opposing points of view, not by reporting what the side which is 'telling the truth' says.
Something else I would like to comment on is the widespread use of the IDF History Department's report as a source in the article. WP:Third-party sources says: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material." Clearly the IDF History Department's report is not a third-party source and therefore shouldn't be being treated as one in the article. The third-party sources essay goes on to say: "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified."
    ←   ZScarpia   19:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
So, fully cite/disclose non-independent sources and all is well? For the IDF History Report -- The Liberty Incident, the connection of the source to the topic is fairly self-explanatory -- same applies to the NSA History Report -- Attack on a SIGINT collector, the USS Liberty.Ken (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Inter-alia, the significance of what the third-party source policy means to the use of the IDF report in the current article is:
  • Try to replace current usages of the report with other, proper, third-party sources if possible.
  • Try to use other, proper, third-party sources in the future if possible.
  • If material from the report has to be used, state it in forms such as 'the IDF report says X happened' rather than 'X happened'.
The same does indeed apply to other non-independent. non-third party, sources.
    ←   ZScarpia   22:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The challenge being to find a reliable third-party source with no "conflict of interest or significant bias" -- a rare critter...Ken (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A comment made earlier: "Al Jazeera is a news agency funded by the royal family of a country that is deeply hostile to Israel". However, if you read the article on "Israel–Qatar relations" here on Wikipedia itself, it is hardly befitting the description of "deeply hostile". Given the trade relations, and the many meetings between high level officials, including two visits by Shimon Peres, it is difficult to describe it even as hostile at all. So, if anything, trying to discredit AlJazeera's neutrality on that basis seems flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.197.35 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

re Ad Orientem, "Al Jazeera is a news agency funded by the royal family of a country that is deeply hostile to Israel and does not recognize Israel or its right to exist", "will raise questions". I do not see how this makes the source even conneted to WP:V, or what it has to do with WP:V at all. Instead, after this remark I doubt if Ad Orientem is able to make any serious judgement about sources at all. For a judgement, the judge better be not biased too. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
After giving it the thirty seconds or so of careful consideration that it deserves, I have decided not to take the WP:BAIT. I am content for your comment to stand on its own merits and let everyone draw their own conclusions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-12/us-government-wouldnt-cover-foreign-governments-murder-our-military-men-would-it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.64.132 (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

I am activating Cluebot III. Sometime in the next couple of days it should start auto-archiving threads that have been inactive for more than 90 days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oren an RS?

Given his later career, passport change and outings Michael Oren cannot be assumed to be a WP:RS any more. I suggest his statements (etc) be removed then. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Kindly quote the policy or guideline you're basing that suggestion on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
ROFLMAO! #Facepalm case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Aggressive POV Editing

There appears to be an editor who has been repeatedly attempting to insert highly questionable material (the source is not RS) into the article despite repeatedly being reverted by multiple editors. Multiple warnings were posted on the IP's talk page and now I have added a level 3 warning to the new accounts page. I don't like ANI but this is getting old. Anyways, extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Increased CPA?

Increased CPA from what to what? That's a decrease? 12.5 to 6.5.Longinus876 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The CPA statement says: "...several messages were sent to Liberty to increase her allowable closest point of approach (CPA) to Egypt's and Israel's coasts from 12.5 and 6.5 nmi (14.4 and 7.5 mi; 23.2 and 12.0 km), respectively, to 20 and 15 nmi (23 and 17 mi; 37 and 28 km), and then later to 100 nmi (120 mi; 190 km) for both countries." Changing the Egyptian CPA from 12.5 nmi to 20 nmi and then 100 nmi, and the Israeli CPA from 6.5 nmi to 15 nmi and then 100 nmi is a CPA increase, in both cases, not a decrease.Ken (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, I realize that setting the CPA farther away decreases or diminishes the attribute of being close. Nonetheless, the magnitude of the CPA was increased.Ken (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on USS Liberty incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Al Jazeera program

@Ad Orientem: I don't quite understand this revert. Are you saying that the program on Al Jazeera's Youtube channel is not the one described in the weblink to which you reverted? What other rationale could there be for keeping mention of the program, but not linking the media itself? VQuakr (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been suggested by Plot Spoiler that the program is propaganda. Beyond which it is linked in the external links section. If consesnsus supports this vidoe program as an RS source then it should be removed from the external links as we don't duplicate links there that already exist in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't really address my question. What confuses me is why we would keep the program cited and in the external links, but not link to the program itself. VQuakr (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
That is a very good question. I am not sure the program merits mention in the article at all. If it does, this would seem an odd place for it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. It's getting late in my corner of the world. I will take a look at this again in the morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the use of 50 ELs ever appropriate?

And one of these isn't even an external link but a book. I can't see how this meets WP:EL and despite the cleanup tag it isn't fixed. I've raised this at WP:ELN. I haven't checked but some of the ELs may be sources, in which case they don't belong in the EL section. I don't plan to edit the article, just raising the issue. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the article exceeds EL policy. Most, if not all, of the in-body ELs should be converted to footnotes where ELs are allowed and commonly used. Anybody up for doing the conversion?Ken (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw the notice on the ELN. I agree. Most of these violate WP:ELNO #1. Dividing websites into "Sources saying attack was a mistake" and "Sources saying attack was deliberate" suggests to me that these sites are biased to the point that they shouldn't be included. - Location (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not clear that a bias one way or the other is problematic. Virtually every source for this article is biased to some extent -- including primary sources like the official investigations.Ken (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

An attack, not just an incident

It occurs to me: it was an attack, not just an incident. There was violence. (An "incident" is what I had at the checkout today. I had forgotten my bag!). -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a matter of context and relative magnitude. The attack on Pearl Harbor is seldom referred to as an incident. But the relatively minor attack on USS Panay is often referred to as the USS Panay incident. Obviously, both events involved an attack, but their relative magnitude was very different -- as indicated by the usage of the noun "attack" v/s "incident" in their description. AFAIK, there is no strict rule for determining which noun to use, but Wiki is fairly consistent in usage.Ken (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's an attack even if it was presented as an incident. We know now it was a planned attack. --Gagarine (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that we should use the term "attack" rather than "incident." MichaelKovich (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Sourced" does not mean "belongs here"

After I did this, No More Mr Nice Guy argued this. However, a statement being sourced does not say it is in the right place. Also, it is not a reply to my edit + es, as if it was not read by No_More.

I propose to have it removed for reasons already noted. -DePiep (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I read your es, but did not understand what you were trying to say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You should have asked then. Anyway, since your reinstalling is not relevant for reason described here (and not objected by you), it should go. Next, I'll explain: the footnote was a bullet, and in the infobox you suggest it was the asterisk that points to the note. Well, nowhere in typography that is the case. On top of this, that infobox has space for a general note, it is not fit to be used as a footnote. So I'll remove it, and refer to my original removal es for actual reason. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The footnote was initially applied as an attempt to explain the use of "Participants" instead of "Belligerents" for the involved two parties. In other words, the attacker and attackee were not belligerents; i.e., not at war with each other or initiating a war with each other. Thus, they were classified as being participants. Also, a footnote is a type of note; thus, since the "notes" parameter is non-specific and not limited as to type of note, I see no reason to disallow this usage.Ken (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I modified the text format of the footnote mark from "*" to "[*]", in both the "Participants" and "notes" parameters, to clarify the footnote nature of the "notes" parameter's text.Ken (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The formatting is only a sideremark, stemming from the different typographic symbol. That is not 'allowed' in goor writing. But the original reason for deletion is, as noted in my OP here and in [3]: no need to give afterward "why" thoughts about who were the belligerents. The note does not belong there. -DePiep (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. As I said, the footnote was originally added (by me) in an effort to explain the use of "Participants" instead of "Belligerents" for describing the involved two parties. There was much discussion about whether or not the parties were "Belligerents" -- as defined in a dictionary. I believe you were the only one who did not want them labeled as "Participants". Your position was that it did not connote the intensity or war-like nature of the attack. Anyway, I have no objection to removing the footnote and footnote marks, as long as "Participants" remains as the label for the two involved parties.Ken (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I remember that discussion but not the details (a similar point is with the downplaying "attack" into "incident"). Anyway, we agree to remove the note because it does not belong there. Please go ahead. -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I object to removing it. I think it's informative and adds to the infobox. People looking at the article at a glance get a better picture of the incident. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion is not the conclusion of this talk. I reverted your edit. Do you want to editwar or argue? -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems you want to edit war. This is being discussed, and I see no consensus for your removal . For the record, I think NMMNG's version is more informative, and better, and support the inclusion. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
re "It seems you want to edit war": bad faith by an admin. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not an admin, and there's no bad faith involved- I am observing that you have reverted this at least 3 or 4 times already, which is indicative of an edit war. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Bad Dryer: your "It seems .." is bad faith. Also, you reverted and now you come talking here? No way. You are behaving double-faced. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not bad faith at all - it is an observation of your behavior - you have repeatedly removed the same information from the article, over the objection of several editors, and without consensus for you actions on the talk page. What would you call this if not edit warring? Bad Dryer (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Both you and NMMNG in this thread pose POV positions. eg your "more informative, and better" opinion does not explain why it should be in a non-related infobox section that has a different topic & title. Then counting votes for a POV does not convince. NMMNG did not even respond to this core error. -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links content to be put into article prose?

U.S. government sites

Sources saying attack was a mistake

Sources saying attack was deliberate

Survivors of the attack

Sources other than survivors

ツStacey (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Andrew, Christopher M. For the President's Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush. New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1995. Print. p.334 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.238.86 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The book's on my shelf. For the part actually stating this ("The Israelis had almost certainly decided to destroy the Liberty rather than allow it to monitor a crucial phase of their operations...") he just cites Bamford's Puzzle Palace. GABgab 00:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on USS Liberty incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Friendly fire, definition?

Does the concept "friendly fire" include an attack on neutral forces? Or only on own or on allied forces? The current entry on friendly fire defines "friendly fire" as an attack by a military force on non-enemy, own, allied or neutral forces while attempting to attack the enemy, either by misidentifying the target as hostile, or due to errors or inaccuracy.

Currently the term "friendly fire" does not appear in the USS_Liberty_incident entry. Ad Orientem rolled back my good faith edit. But I reformed the sentence as follows:

Accidents and mistakes do occur in wartime. Journalist Ze'ev Schiff gave an example of a friendly fire incident where Israeli aircraft had bombed an Israeli armored column south of the West Bank town of Jenin the day before the attack on the Liberty.[75]

Obviously it was grave mistake. Whether or not friendly fire is controversial.-Yohananw (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yohananw, I noticed that you edited friendly fire to match your definition/opinion of the term, and did not cite a source for your "friendly fire" edit. AFAIK, the term "friendly fire" has always been limited to mean "blue-on-blue" fire; i.e., firing at one's own or allied military forces. Whether or not it's obvious that the attack was a grave mistake is controversial, not whether or not it was "friendly fire."Ken (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

Why is John Loftus' and Mark Aarons' book The Secret War Against the Jews tagged as "unreliable source"?

--92.217.168.112 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm just guessing here but perhaps it's because it's a conspiracy theory book. Wikipedia frowns on such works. Jtpaladin (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits needed: Section 2.3 Air and Sea Attack

Article currently says: Due to damaged equipment, McGonagle could only reply with "AA" using a handheld Aldis lamp.[citation needed] Oren recalled receiving a similar response from the Ibrahim el Awal, an Egyptian destroyer captured by Israel during the Suez Crisis, and was convinced that he was facing an enemy ship.[citation needed]


Certainly disputed fact, and not supported from any source. Signalman on the Liberty has testified to constantly messaging "USS Liberty, US Navy Ship" prior to the torpedo attacks.

Advice vs Request

Isn't this misleading?

According to Israeli sources, at the start of the war on 5 June, General Yitzhak Rabin (then IDF Chief of Staff) informed Commander Ernest Carl Castle, the American Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal, including sinking unidentified ships. Also, he asked the U.S. to keep its ships away from Israel's shore or at least inform Israel of their exact position.[13][a]

American sources said that no inquiry about ships in the area was made until after the Liberty attack ended. In a message sent from U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk to U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Rusk asked for "urgent confirmation" of Israel's statement. Barbour responded: "No request for info on U.S. ships operating off Sinai was made until after Liberty incident." Further, Barbour stated: "Had Israelis made such an inquiry it would have been forwarded immediately to the chief of naval operations and other high naval commands and repeated to dept [Department of State]."[14]

What the report actually says is " Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them." In other words, only advice was given and no request was actually made (which Rusk says in the next paragraph would have been passed down. The next day, the US said at the UNSC that no American ships were in the area, so it is conceivable that this advice was not transmitted. The way the article was written makes it sound like either Rusk is wrong or Rabin and Castle are wrong, but the sources don't actually imply that. 67.82.61.205 (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So, simply change the word "informed" to "advised" in the first sentence; and the word "asked" to "advised" in the second sentence. Be careful to not include your opinion as to meaning or significance.Ken (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

USS Shangri La CVA 38

The USS Shangri La CVA 38 was in the Med at the time of the USS Liberty attack. We were called to battle stations when the event occurred and a bomber plane was on the catapult with Marines guarding it until the incident de-escalated. The only reason Marines would be guarding the plane is if nuclear bombs were on the plane. The plane was not launched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M M Smith 1047 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Liberty_incident/Archive_1&oldid=955303013"