Talk:USS Liberty incident

Removal of sourced material.

It doesn't really matter if you think that the Chanel 2 is wrong the source clearly says that the tapes are newly revealed and were first aired on Chanel 2.Wikipedia its a about verifiability and not truth.So word "wrong" is irrelevant is this context. --Shrike (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about truth. If there is strong reason to believe that something isn't true, then it shouldn't be included, whether a source supports the claim or not. The current wording in the WP:V policy is unfortunate. Hopefully, that flaw will be fixed soon (i.e. in a few month from now). --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Shrike, I did not issue an opinion or belief about Channel-2's statements of fact, it's simply that direct evidence (i.e., the primary source) does not agree with Channel-2's factual calims. In short, the factual claims by Channel-2 misrepresent the primary source -- they are "wrong." In a similar manner, any opinions or findings expressed by Channel-2, that it claims are supported by the misrepresented facts, are unreliable; i.e., not Wikipedia worthy.Ken (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dоеs this record were aired before?--Shrike (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read the following NSA web pages:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/recordings.shtml

The transcripts have been in the public domain (i.e., "aired") since mid-2003. Also, the transcripts do not contain communications between the attack-pilots and their ground controller, as claimed by Channel-2.Ken (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Aired is not the same as revealed I think it was the first time it was played in the public.--Shrike (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The transcripts have been in the public domain since 2003, and displayed on the NSA website for anybody to review at any time. Channel-2 claims the transcripts are new and recently released, Channel-2 is wrong. This may be the first time you and others have become aware of the transcripts, but they have been in the public domain for almost 9 years.Ken (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop playing games.It was first time it was aired in audio.Only transcripts were available.--Shrike (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Shrike, in what sense do the Channel2 outings add anything to the 2003 sources? If they only confirm, there is no need to add them (being in Hebrew). If they have been edited (reduced), they are useless. If they add substance, please point out. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

From the first link: "collection of documents and audio recordings and transcripts previously posted to the site on 02 July 2003." Contemporaneous CNN article, and CNN video report, where they play the tapes. Msgohan (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, Msgohan, what is your point? -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a response to Shrike's claim above that only transcripts were previously available. I don't know why you added another indent to my text, but that's why it looks like a reply to you instead. Msgohan (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I get it, thanx. And I added a indent because I do not know the usage you did: the meaning of the same indenting level. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Shrike, no games are being played. The transcripts and recordings (perhaps I should have been more explicit) have been in the public domain since mid-2003. And, as Msgohan discovered, they were "played" by media outlets long before Israel's Channel-2 jumped on the bandwagon. I believe your complaint should be directed toward Channel-2 for sloppy research and misrepresentation of the facts, not to anybody here.Ken (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Who messed-up the lead-in to this subtopic? Whoever it was, please correct. Thanks.Ken (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Msgohan, thanks for the repair -- and contributions above.Ken (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Congressional investigation

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

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

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

An op-ed article cannot be considered a reliable secondary source for this type of factual claim. In contrast, the published book "The Liberty incident: the 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S. Navy spy ship" by A. Jay Cristol, a recognized expert on this incident, is a reliable source. Marokwitz (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Charles K. Ebinger is an energy expert what authority he have as a military historian?--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Recognised by who? A. Jay Cristol himself says he is an "amateur historian". Cristol can not be considered a reliable source for this claim due to COI. The Liberty survivors made this claim long before Brookings did. If the claim made by Brookings is incorrect then a Congressional source can easily be found to refute it as it will be public record. Provide it and the claim can be deleted. Ebinger is also an expert on geopolitics and the military. Wayne (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim was also part of an official complaint of judicial misconduct by the Liberty survivors against Cristol in the 11th Circuit court. Among a laundry list of problems with his book, that Cristol's claim of "five Congressional investigations" was misleading as they were not investigations into culpability. That it was part of a legal document supports Ebinger. Wayne (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote: After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty. LC Control Number: 98135843. - Librarian of Congress July 25, 2006 Wayne (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a link to the court documents please?--Shrike (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Shrike, Here's a source: http://www.ussliberty.org/thebiglie.htm You may find it disagreeable. If so, I suggest repeating the question to a librarian at the Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/rr/askalib/ -- nothing beats hearing an answer directly from a primary source.Ken (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So no original documents exist I see.I think its so hard to provide a scan of such documents.--Shrike (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The librarian's answer was via email, not a paper document. You can test its validity by asking the librarian the same original question, via email. Meanwhile, I'll search for an on-line copy of an official letter from by a U.S. Navy JAG officer that effectively says the same thing.Ken (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a text copy of the JAG letter: http://www.ussliberty.org/jagc.txt As you can read, it does not say there was a congressional investigation, only that the navy conducted a Court of Inquiry. If you do not trust the text copy as faithfully representing the actual letter, then I suggest you research the matter yourself via the JAG contact listed in the letter.Ken (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I may have misunderstood your request. Here's the primary source for the USS Liberty Count of Inquiry records: http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/jagman_investigations.htm Ken (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To date, the most reliable and extremely well-referenced secondary source I've found is James Scott's book, "The Attack on the Liberty: The untold story of Israel's deadly 1967 assault on a U.S. spy ship", But, like all secondary sources for this subject, it too is not 100% reliable, and they all contain various degrees of opinion and unsupported assertion of fact. (Thus, the reason I advocate use of only primary sources, and official American and Israeli history reports for this article.) Anyway, for the matter at hand, there is public domain correspondence from a Library of Congress reference librarian that says: "After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty." Of course, the librarian could be wrong or the correspondence a fraud, but nobody has found and presented evidence that counters the librarian's finding. Nonetheless, in his Op Ed article, Mr. Ebinger does not provide a primary reference or direct evidence to support his factual claim, even though it appears true; so, in strict accordance with WP, it should be removed -- regardless of its integrity. Now, going forward, let's apply this same standard to other secondary source material within the article -- let the deletion begin!Ken (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It all may be true(or not) but according to Wikipedia policies we should use reliable secondary source a opinion piece by energy expert is not a good source--Shrike (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree. Although, even a "reliable" or expert secondary source needs to provide verifiable attribution or credible direct evidence for any factual claims (whether the claims be true of false). And if allowed, unsupported claims should be clearly stated or presented as a source's opinion or preception, not fact.Ken (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC) In this regard, there is much work to be done before the "USS Liberty Incident" article becomes compliant with WP.Ken (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Clearly, the Liberty survivors and their supporters feel strongly that the Israeli attack on the Liberty has never been properly investigated. That they have this concern belongs in the article, with attribution. But if someone were to come up with another clear cut maritime incident where U.S. military forces were killed that was not investigated by Congress, or some obscure Congressional hearing that opined on the events, I doubt it would assuage the survivor's concerns one bit. We should not report over-broad rhetorical assertions as fact. --agr (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Arnold hit the nail on the head: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." So far, based on available evidence and sources, it appears that WP will support somebody writing, in effect, that the incident was not investigated by the United States Congress -- assuming that somebody can find a "reliable" primary or secordary source for attribution. I doubt that this approach will satisfy those who want the article to say that the incident was fully investigated, or those who want it to say it was not fully investigated. Frankly, the article should not be about satisfying anybody's point of view, it should focus on presenting well-sourced matters of fact.Ken (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick search of Scott's book yielded no mention of a Congressional investigation; although, he well-covers various congressional meetings and actions that included references to the Liberty incident, and implies that there was only marginal Congressional interest overall. Of course, not saying there was an investigation does not mean there was no investigation. Whatever the case, there surely would be a record of an investigation, and none can be found. Anyway, perhaps it's best to simply do as Scott did: write about what occurred, not what did not occur.Ken (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not fix it as we do for other articles? IE: "According to James Ennes, in reply to claims in A. J. Cristol's book that the attack was properly investigated, Liberty survivors have sought details of any investigations from the Navy Judge Advocate General, from the Library of Congress, from the Congressional Research Service and from any other relevant government agency and been consistently informed that there has never been any congressional investigation, making the Liberty incident the only maritime peacetime incident in U.S. history where U.S. military forces were killed that was never fully investigated by the United States Congress". Another source is O'Keefe from WMREA who also investigated the claim and found it to be true. Wayne (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally, this seems like a reasonable approach, as long as the phrase "making the Liberty incident the only maritime peacetime incident in U.S. history where U.S. military forces were killed that was never fully investigated by the United States Congress" is a direct quote from Ennes, and presented as his opinion and not necessarily fact. In a like manner, A. J. Cristol's opinion that 5 congressional investigations have been conducted should also appear, to fairly represent the widely different opinions for this matter. Of course, the source(s) for all quotes needs to be properly attributed. And I would stay away from trying to squeeze all of this into the introduction -- it far exceeds being a brief overview of the incident. An appropriate place is likely somewhere within the "Investigations of the attack" subtopic which, of course, does not include a congressional investigation of the incident, on its list of investigations.Ken (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The exact quote is "Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty remains the only major maritime [peacetime] incident in American history [where U.S. military forces were killed] not investigated by Congress." This is Ennes' rebuttal of Cristol's claim. Probably even damning enough to discredit Cristol as a RS for the investigations. Wayne (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should we accept Ennes claims?Why its better then Cristol's?--Shrike (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd give Ennes points for providing evidence whereas Cristol has declined to do so. Wayne (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't found any evidence only his own words.--Shrike (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Shrike, Attempting to prove a negative (i.e., no congressional investigations) is virtually impossible. About the best one can say is that after searching and asking people who should know, no evidence of investiagtions was found; thus, apparently there were no investigations. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility; i.e., prove the negative. On the other hand, A.J. Cristol, who makes the exceptional claim of five congessional investigations, has offered a bit of evidence, but upon inspection none has shown itself to support his claim.Ken (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Shrike and Wayne, I suggest approaching this as a neutral party writing a story about Ennes's V/S Cristol's claims, not trying to prove one wrong and the other right.Ken (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Wayne, I leave it to you and Shrike to work through this. I'm spending far too much time on this matter.Ken (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think my suggestion above covers it reasonably well and we use both the O’Keefe and Ennes references to support it. What do you say Shrike? Wayne (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we can include both views and give attribution to each view.--Shrike (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reenem is back -- and up to his usual mischief

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

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

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

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

Friendly fire example revisited.

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

Orna Katz-Atar

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

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

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