Talk:USS Liberty incident
| ↓ | Skip to table of contents | ↓ |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Liberty incident article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Article policies
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | |||
|
|
|||
| WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The article USS Liberty incident, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:
|
| This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details |
| USS Liberty incident is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||
|
|||||
| A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 8, 2004 and June 8, 2007. |
Archives |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| Threads older than 60 days may be archived by MiszaBot I. |
Contents
Proposed merge with Ward Boston[edit]
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- Going to the bathroom? -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2014 (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)
- Support Subject does not appear to pass WP:1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 22 September 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)
- Eh, Oswald is >1Event you say? -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 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)
- 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)
- I did and I found it unconvincing. It's all about the same underlying event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 22 September 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)
- 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.
Move part of the introduction[edit]
The part about Israeli donations to the families of the killed and wounded ones can be moved to the aftermath. I see no reaon to have it on the part of the article that is supposed to quickly summarize the whole incident. What do you people think? Keep or move? I would like to know why it is relevant to keep it there. Ps. Sorry for my english.
--90.149.188.205 (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
How many crew in total? I see there is 171 wounded and 34 dead. Were the entire surviving crew affected / wounded? 46.15.34.251 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no citation for the following important sentence.[edit]
"The United States did not provide Israel any information about Liberty's mission or location."
Suggest removing if no citation can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.77.71 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Primary source for Israel's apology[edit]
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)
Five Towns Jewish Times - article about Lyndon B. Johnson's attitute to Israel.[edit]
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)
- 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)
-
-
- 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 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)
- 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)
Most recent developments not included.[edit]
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)
- Inter-alia, the significance of what the third-party source policy means to the use of the IDF report in the current article is:
- 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)
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)
- 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
- Wikipedia articles under general sanctions
- Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested)
- C-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- C-Class intelligence articles
- Intelligence task force articles
- C-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Ships articles
- Ships articles needing attention to referencing and citation
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance United States articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Selected anniversaries (June 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2007)