Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 3

message: In a number of places article tells us that there were numerous investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty by both the US and Israeli governments.  It appears that this claim has its origin in the opinion to that effect expressed by Jay Cristol in his book "The Liberty Incident."  Since it is just a restatement of an opinion, why does not that reference in the article run afoul of the NPOV policy? USS Liberty Survivor 13:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question About NPOV 

message: A minor point:
*"His is the only Medal of Honor not to be awarded by the U.S. President in a formal event [citation needed]"
Here's just one example of a Medal of Honor awarded by the Secretary of the Navy, not the President:
*"The coveted medal was presented to his teen-aged daughter, Miss Frances Bonnyman, by James F. Forrestal, then Secretary of the Navy, during appropriate ceremonies at the Navy Department, Washington, D.C., 22 January 1947."
I think this was pretty common. --A. B. (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only Medal of Honor not awarded by the President ... 

message: A few years ago, CBS produced an entirely fabricated documentary for the History Channel called "Coverup" allegedly on the Liberty affair. The film became a laughing stock before it was even broadcast, and both networks still refuse to comment on it. Bamford and Ennes were infolved in the production up to their necks. 
The producers of the film used fake footage -- including an overhead shot of a destroyer labeled "USS Liberty" and footage of a burning ship, also not Liberty. They even made up their own motive, apparently after they had discarded another one -- that the Israelis were trying to coverup their attack on the Golan. Only they had already told the Americans about the attack. I have the declassified State Department document -- they did tell the US military attache. 
Worse, the CBS producers knew of the document, and ignored it. If history has taught us anything, it's that those who lie about history do so for a reason -- they don't like the facts. (Luckily for all of those involved, the film just preceded the blog era. The bloggers would have destroyed them.)
The Liberty Affaire is simply a case of friendly fire, they happen all the time. The pace of modern warfare makes them inevitable, and always, someone dreams up a vast conspiracy.
By the way, you can't jam transmitters. Period. Only receivers. Scott Adler 21:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverup: If it was an Israeli plot, why lie to prove it? 

message: Please read the evidence presented in the article.  It's impossible to dismiss the eyewitness accounts and other evidence pointing to a deliberate attack.  This incident brings out the usual pro-Israel crowd who dogmatically attack anything which portrays Israe in a less than favorable light.  This does a great disservice not just to our American men in uniform but to Israel's credibility.   24.99.72.69 01:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum for you or anyone to assert your interpretation  which, counter to your statement, many reasonable people who are not "the usual pro-Israel crowd" find it quite possible to dismiss. Gzuckier 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with the statement that Wikipedia is not a forum for anyone to assert their interpretation  which, counter to a previous statement, many reasonable people who are not "the usual pro-Israel crowd" find it quite possible to dismiss. And eyewitness reports are only valid as the folks who make them. Hearsay can be very unreliable, especially from an emotionally unstable or ideologically-driven source. 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your circular logic is amazing. There is not a magic history robot that flies around. The "official" reports come from hearsay, "and can be very unreliable, especially from an emotionally unstable or ideologically-driven source." 194.81.69.23 20:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence Points to Deliberate Attack 

message: Note: I've removed the posting here, and also removed a response asking that it be put in "plain English", because the posting was not constructive, and because it attacked another editor by name.  Discussions on talk pages should be limited to conversations about how to improve articles, not commenting on the personalities of other editors, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.  Comments about specific things that are wrong with the article - not general assertions about POV without any detail - are always welcome.  (As for "Truth", the criteria here is "verifiability" - see WP:V. Controversial statements without a supporting citation typically are deleted because they constitute what we here call original research.)  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totalitarian Ethnic Activism Destroying Scholarship 

message: It's pretty obvious that this entire incident was a horrible case of friendly fire.  The US military has killed their own soldiers in many friendly fire incidents, as well as at least one British soldier in the recent Iraq War. It happens, it's part of war. The IAF used NAPALM against the USS Liberty, not bombs, which proves they were diverted from attacking Egyptian forces on land. They later offered to help rescue the Americans (hostile attackers don't do this)
If this were anything other than friendly fire then why would the US continue to support Israel after the accident?  To get back at the Soviets?  Not likely.  Grow up people, you can't hate Israel for our military's mistakes (not giving sufficient warning that the Liberty was in the region)
:I agree with the poster that friendly fire incidents happen in every war. But just to be clear, the responsibility lies with the shooter, not the victim. I don't think anyone, even on the Israeli side, disputes Israel's being primarily at fault for the attack.  In particular, Israel, according to its account of the incident,  was aware that  a U.S. ship was  in the area and had it on its HQ plot board for a while, but the marker was removed because the position information was stale. The question here is whether the attack was deliberate, or friendly fire as you argue, I think correctly.--agr 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might claim that it is a conspiracy theory, but it is hard to believe that anyone with good visibility could mistake any 10000ton ship with a 2000ton one(unless you are completely unexperienced in recognizing ships), even more given the fact that those ships weren't even remotely alike after resizing. And yet the think tanks want us to believe that multiple Israelis kept mistaking the ship for over 1,5h at good weather with full confidence(you don't attack ships in international waters if you are unsure of their allegiance - they were supposed to be fully convinced). I don't have any clue what the reason for the attack would be, but regardless how many "official investigations" parrot the Israeli version, it doesn't make it sound less ridiculous.Remember also that even if the Israeli version is false, the US gov would have no reason for exposing it. Mik1984 16:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone was properly trained and followed their training there would be far fewer friendly fire incidents.  And there is no reason to think the Israeli pilots had much training in ship recognition. Israel was fighting a land and air war against its neighbors.  You shouldn't attack ships in international waters if you are unsure of their allegiance, but that doesn't mean it never happens. A number of U.S. ships have been hit by friendly fire over the years. And the U.S shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 civilians, without ever making a positive ID of the target. --agr 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down under an erroneous identification. If you want to call a "positive ID" a visual identification, then that is a 1960s mentality and does not reflect the realities of not modern warfare. I'm not saying that the Israelis did or didn't attack intentionally, but the comparison to the Iran Air Flight 655 is not accurate and shouldn't be used in the article. — BQZip01 — talk 03:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No two incidents are ever exactly comparable, but whatever you think positive ID means in radar-directed warfare, it would be hard to argue that the U.S. had it when it shot down Iran air 655. Both incidents involved a failure to use all the information available that resulted in an erroneous identification and a tragic loss of life.--agr 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friendly Fire happens in almost every war 

message: User:Bill0756 requested an explanation of my deletion of a link to a web site that purports to prove the cover photo on a certain book was faked. WP:RS says: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." and further "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources". The primary purpose of the site in question and, in particular, its use here, appears to be to discredit the author of the book. That puts it under WP:BLP which says "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." I hope this make my reasons clear.--agr 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Faked" photo link deletion 

message: Annon user writes "Reinhold chnaged this. W. really bad. I could not see where to send him an email. But I see no support for administrative or communications problems. The message was sent 0811 Zulu June 8. PERIOD." 
The fate of the message in question is describes in excruciating detail in the NSA's official report on pages 21 to 23. The short version: 0110Z is the time the message was issued. It was addressed to the Commander, Sixth Fleet for action. It did not get to Sixth Fleet HQ until 0440Z. Sixth Fleet issued a message to Liberty at 0917Z. Liberty was guarding the fleet broadcast from Asmara, Ethopia. The 0917Z message was sent first to Morocco, which sent it to Asmara which sent it to Greece which sent it back to Asmara where it was finally broadcast to Liberty at 1525Z.  The attack started at about 1200Z. --agr 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order to move Libery 100 nm from coast 

message: The website counterpunch appeared as a source in the article....I'm not entirely sure it means the qualifications for wikipedia reliable source (It appears to be a crackpot website....it seems to be accusing the US of genocide against mexicans in the 1920s using zyklon B, among others). Does anyone else have a view on the source's usage? Narson 10:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterpunch as a source? 

message: The rabid hacking by Jew-haters is obvious. Please keep these racist, fascist crackpots out of Wiki.
In lieu of the above; there is far too much 'to and fro' POV in almost every paragraph, which makes points and reading very CHAOTIC and a near complete 'put-off.'
Please section-off CRITICISMS or speculative theories by conspiracy crackpots and, for instance, the verdict of the NUMEROUS INDEPENDENT inquiries inferring the incident was 'non-intentional' if for no other reason than to assist the readability of the entry.
KEEP SEPARATE for READABILITY, and cognitive flow of content.
Perhaps have a separate Wiki entry where insane conspiracy idiots can vent their feverish fantasies? -203.214.60.68
*STFU. --Shoshoni 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   == ANTI-JEWISH; HACKS BY ANTI-SEMITES == 

message: I called for citation for the following claim
“They claim it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly.”
The cited source http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/arguments/american/investigations.html  in no way baked the claim Kidd’s name is not even on the page.
Lenbrazil 04:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed 

message: 1. The fact that this event is controversial is part of its legacy. It is controversial because the attacks were Unprovoked by a supposed ally. There is need to correct the introduction because it reads as uncontroversial.
2. I was referring to the one that still exists with the holes in it.
4. I agree with your stand on this.
5. I can accept your natural version of events on this point but I see them as unnatural. I concede.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I think your have a point here. There was no mention of the controversy until the fifth paragraph. I added a brief and, I hope, NPOV, mention to the first paragraph. I did not use the word "unprovoked," for the reasons I gave above, and also because that really isn't the heart of the controversy, which is whether the attack delibertly targeted a ship known to be American. --agr 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are always subject to change, there is no "final" version. The intro as it currently stands does make it clear that there is controversy over the incident and mentions many of the important issues, others are covered in the body of the article. I think that's fair. --agr (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Because the official version by the two parties involved is more weighty than conspiracy theorists? At a guess. You might want to consider expanding your edits on wikipedia outside of the realm of talk page campaigning for hoax theories to be included in prominance, it might help round out the arguments and make you more aware of wiki-guidelines and policies that result in the treatment of hoax theories that seems to have you so upset. Narson (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry you feel that way. Single purpose accounts are often ignored due to the tenatious way they approach things, I was merely suggesting ways to improve your understanding of wikipedia and to broaden your editing styles so you could perhaps gain some perspective.  Narson (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction? Part 3 

message: I read somewhere that the liberty was sending Israeli tank communication to the Egyptians.  Can anyone find a source for this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.28 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Liberty was recording Arab and Russian communications and were under orders not to record Israeli at all. One of the claims for the reason Israel attacked is that they were worried the Liberty was recording Israeli communications which could have been used in a future war crimes trial against them. This is probably where your theory came from. Wayne 05:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Espionage 

message: These are important aspects that need to be in the article. Moorer was formerly the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of STaff,the highest ranking military officer in the US, and a WWII hero. The commission he chaired, which reported its findings on Capitol Hill in 2003, is highly significant. The findings need to be in the article. 
Also, Captain Ward Boston's affidavit needs to be included, as does Rear Admiral Starings's information. These are among the highest military officers in the United States. Their statements -- given in the Rayburn House Office Building -- are historic.
:I remind you of the 3RR rule. You have now done 6 reverts in 6 hours! I give you the benifit of good faith but don't do it again. I suggest you make small edits and allow them to stand on their own merits. Parts of the massive edit you made do make some good points but are badly worded, unfortunately most of what you have done is innapropriate and unnneccesary. Wayne 06:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that 7 reverts now. Make a small edit every few hours and you will have more chance of them staying if they are worthy of inclusion. Large blocks of quotes are innapropriate no matter how accurate or true they are. You pick a representative quote where needed and then provide a link for the rest. Learn how to edit then try your hand, what you are doing now is vandalism. Wayne 15:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moorer Commission on Capitol Hill and Captain Ward Boston statement 

message: This article seems large enough that the see also section is unnecessary at this point and had run amok of WP:GTL. Anyways, --Tom 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a highly contentious subject and some of the articles in the "see also" section provide important balance. It has gotten a bit out of control. I'd suggest anything from WW II and before is too old to be of relevance. --agr (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: I once again removed claims that suggest the Liberty may have ignored orders to withdraw. There is nothing in the Naval Court of Inquiry report cited that says any such thing. Nor is there any difference between its account of the communication screw up that caused the Liberty not to receive the order in time and that in the NSA report (which recounts essentially the same story). The editor making these claims cites a message to sixth fleet headquarters well before the attack, but as both the NSA and Navy accounts make clear, that order was not sent to Liberty until after the attack. --agr (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim Liberty ignored orders to withdraw 

message: The list shows "Cryptologic Technician 2nd Class Allen M. Blue, NSA". According to his wife and other sources he was an NSA Arab-language expert assigned to the liberty and was the only civilian casualty. Is it a standard practice for civilians assigned to the Navy to be given rank or is the listing an error? If the rank is not an error shouldn't it added that he was a civilian? Wayne (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Before working for NSA, Mr. Blue was a CT2 in the Navy.  He may have been in the Naval Reserve while working as a civilian for NSA.  Thus, even though he was a civilian employee for NSA, while on board USS Liberty, he was also a Cryptologic Technician 2nd Class. Ken (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities 

message: This line is part of a section an anon reverted back and WLRoss reverted back in:
Many key intelligence and military officials dispute Israel's explanation
Might I suggest we alter the wording to avoid causing consternation?
Prominent members of the intelligence and military community have disputed Israel's explanation
I think everyone can agree they are all prominent people, key can be argued over and should probably be avoided. Narson (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many reliable sources actually say "most government, intelligence and military officials" so "many" is a good compromise to avoid POV reverting. "Prominent" is possibly not the best word as, although many prominant members do dispute it, some prominent members do not. How about we drop "key" from the sentence for the same reason? That will leave a very neutral sentence that avoids undue weight for any side being claimed. Wayne (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Narson (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted line 

message: The point entitled, Visibility of ensign, states, in part: "...one flag that had been shot down was replaced with another, larger flag that measured 13 feet (4.0 m) long."  This statement strongly implies that the flag was truly 13 feet in length.  In fact, the Naval Court of Inquiry (NCOI) record states clearly approximate flag dimensions, not actual flag dimensions.  The only sizes stated clearly, in the NCOI report's appendix (page VII, ‘Point 6’) are regulation size 9 for the daily or steaming ensign/flag and regulation size 7 for the larger holiday ensign/flag.  A size 9 flag's dimensions are 3.5 x 6.7 feet, and a size 7 flag's dimensions are 5 x 9.5 feet.
The point entitled, Israeli Jets Not Armed for Attacking a Ship, states, in part: ... "Advocates question why Israeli jets flew out to the Liberty armed only with machine guns and napalm -- instead of bombs -- as these weapons were incapable of sinking a US warship."  In fact, the Israelis claim the jets were armed with only rapid-firing 30mm cannons and napalm bombs.  In other words, machine gun connotes 0.50 caliber guns, not 30mm rapid-firing cannons; and napalm bombs are, as the name connontes, bombs.
The point entitled, Israeli offers of help, states in part: "... Ennes acknowledges the Israelis offered help but claims they only did so at 4:30."  In fact, the Israeli History Report about the attack states clearly that the Israelis did not offer help until a few minutes after 1630 (4:30 P.M.).  Thus, the time is not only claimed by Ennes, but by the Israelis themselves. Ken (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors spotted in the "Details in dispute" section 

message: Second paragraph states, in part: "On June 5 ... asked the U.S. to keep it ships away from the shore or at least inform Israel of their exact position.  Despite this, the United States did not give Israel any information about the Liberty, which was by now in the eastern Mediterranean." 
Question: What is the reference source for the first statement?  
Fact: According to USS Liberty's Deck Log and SITREP messages, on June 5, 1967, USS Liberty was not in the eastern Mediterranean Sea or near Israel.  Thus, the second statement is partly erroneous.
Comment: I believe it should be noted that at no time did USS Liberty enter the territorial waters of Israel or come close enough to Israel's shore to be considered a threat to Israel.  On the other hand, she did come relatively close to Egypt's shore (northern Sinai), while steaming west (i.e., away from Israel), in international waters. Ken (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in sub-section entitled "Events leading up to the attack" 

message: Currently, in the second paragraph of the introduction, the following is stated: "The IDF air and naval forces mistakenly identified the Liberty, first as a destroyer and then as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir."
Based on the IDF History Report, this statement is ambiguous and potentially misleading.  Here's a suggested rewording of the statement: "The IDF air force misidentified Liberty as possibly being a destroyer, but its pilots could not determine the ship's country of origin; later, after the air force attacked the ship, the IDF navy misidentified Liberty as an Egyptian cargo ship named El Quseir."Ken (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I see is putting too much detail into the intro, as opposed to the body of the article. --agr (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with not placing too much detail into the intro, but the info provided should not be ambiguous or misleading.  As the statement now stands, it says the IDF air force and navy mistakenly identified Liberty as a destroyer and then an Egyptian vessel.  This is not what the IDF History Report or the IDF Inquiry Report says.  Instead, the IDF's claim is as given in the suggested rewording; i.e., the air force misidentified the ship as possibly a destroyer of unknown origin, and the navy misidentified the ship as the Egyptian cargo ship El Quseir.Ken (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's a very simple rewording suggestion that's in the spirit of keeping the intro both non-detailed and non-ambiguous: "The IDF air and naval forces, respectively, misidentified the Liberty as an unknown destroyer and an Egyptian cargo ship named El Quseir."Ken (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me, though "and the Egyptian cargo ship El Quseir" would be a little less stilted.--agr (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous statement of misidentification events