Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 1

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Two POVs, each using parallel structure, is NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Context 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is noting an appearance of a "torpedo launch attitude" the same thing as perceiving a torpedo attack? Jayjg 07:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fired with order or without? 

message: Why does the first section link to ?  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)
replies: text: I agree. I'll remove it in my next edit unless someone else does first. - Brian Kendig 17:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterpunch article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Too many links 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Sounds like a reasonable presumption to me...Ken (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: What is an essay, McGonagle's, or Boston's? -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability criterion that mentions the Medal of Honor is an essay. VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Going to the bathroom? -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I did and I found it unconvincing. It's all about the same underlying event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Eh, Oswald is >1Event you say? -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Ward Boston]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: for the record, this drive by edit looks like gaming the system. -DePiep (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary source for Israel's apology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ROFLMAO! #Facepalm case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oren an RS? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aggressive POV Editing 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on USS Liberty incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327062036/http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/87/IMG/NR024087.pdf to http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/87/IMG/NR024087.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140822183815/http://www.cryptome.org/nsa-liberty.htm to http://www.cryptome.org/nsa-liberty.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: It has been suggested by  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Al Jazeera program 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is the use of 50 ELs ever appropriate? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I also agree that we should use the term "attack" rather than "incident." MichaelKovich (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  An attack, not just an incident 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 : 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: re "It seems you want to edit war": bad faith by an admin. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Sourced" does not mean "belongs here" 

message: ===U.S. government sites===
*Itemised cost of repairs to the USS Liberty United States Department of the Navy September 1967
*Naval Historical Center, featuring photographs of the ship and crew, and the aftermath of the attack.
*National Security Agency's Memorial Wall, including list of names inscribed on the wall.
*U.S. Navy JAG Corps investigations library contains links to record of proceedings for high-profile investigations, including the USS Liberty.
*Report of the JCS Fact-Finding Team; USS Liberty Incident/ 8 June 1967
====Declassified State Department====
*ARAB-ISRAELI CRISIS AND WAR, 1967, Foreign Relations Series
*Correspondence
**Preliminary Inquiry on the Liberty Case, 15 August 1967
**Torpedoing of USS Liberty, 8 June 1967
**Arab-Israel Situation Report, 1200, 8 June 1967
**Arab-Israel Situation Report, 1800, 8 June 1967
**INR Comments on the USS Liberty Incident, 8, 13 June June 1967
**Arab-Israel Situation Report, 1100, 8 June 1967, 8 June 1967
====Declassified National Security Agency====
*Chronologies
**USS Liberty (USN-855) (AGTR-5) Chronology of Events, 8 June 1967
**U.S.Cryptologic History Report, "Attack on a SIGINT Collector, the U.S.S. Liberty", dated 1981 (originally released in 1999)
*Follow-Up Reports
**Report 1, dated 9 June 1967, 0831Z 
**Report 2, dated 9 June 1967, 1422Z
*National Military Command Center Documents
#The USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5) Struck by Torpedo, 8 June 1967
#Attack on USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5), 9 June 1967
#Status of USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5), 10 June 1967
#Attack on USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5), 10 June 1967
===Sources saying attack was a mistake===
*The Lie that Won’t Die: the USS Liberty Attack Slander by Robert Werdine
*The Liberty Incident, by A. Jay Cristol
*The USS Liberty: Case Closed Azure article by Michael Oren
* Michael Oren's "Six Days of War." Ballantine Books, 2003, p. 263–271
*Memos show Liberty attack was an error Haaretz article by Nathan Guttman
*Return of the USS Liberty Critique of Bamford's "Body of Secrets" from Honest Reporting
*Bamford Bashes Israel: Conspiracy Theorist Claims Attack on USS Liberty Intentional from the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
*The USS Liberty Attack from the Anti-Defamation League
*USS Liberty: Israel Did Not Intend to Bomb the Ship by A. Jay Cristol
*USS Liberty on www.sixdaywar.org
*USS 'Liberty' hit was unintentional, says CIA
*USS Liberty attack tapes released by David Ensor, CNN
===Sources saying attack was deliberate===
Survivors of the attack
*USS Liberty Veterans Association website
*USS Liberty Memorial, by survivor Jim Ennes. This site includes a wide variety of documents, photographs, statements by survivors, and responses to authors who argue that the attack was a mistake.
*Assault on Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years by Jim Ennes at Washington-Report
*43 Years After Surviving Israeli Attack on USS Liberty, US Veteran Joe Meadors Seized by Israeli Forces on Gaza Aid Flotilla – video report by Democracy Now!
Sources other than survivors
*Chicago Tribune Article 2007
*Israeli communications said to prove IAF knew Liberty was U.S. ship, Yossi Melman, Ha'aretz, 4 October 2007.
*Captain Ward Boston (USN, Ret.), chief counsel to the Navy's Board of Inquiry interviewed on Electric Politics 29 June 2007
*A Juridical Examination of the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty by Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen, JAGC, USN
*San Diego Union-Tribune: Lifting the "fog of war" by David C. Walsh
*U.S. Navy and Marine Casualties in Wars, Conflicts, Terrorist Acts, and other Hostile Acts
*Conflicting comments rekindle Liberty dispute, Marine Corps Times, 26 June 2002, by Bryant Jordan
*The Moorer Report. Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government
*War Crimes Committed against U.S. Personnel, 8 June 1967
*The Day Israel Attacked America – Al Jazeera English special programme 2014/10/30
ツStacey (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links content to be put into article prose? 

message: Survivors of the attack
*USS Liberty Veterans Association website
*USS Liberty Memorial, by survivor Jim Ennes. This site includes a wide variety of documents, photographs, statements by survivors, and responses to authors who argue that the attack was a mistake.
*Assault on Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years by Jim Ennes at Washington-Report
*43 Years After Surviving Israeli Attack on USS Liberty, US Veteran Joe Meadors Seized by Israeli Forces on Gaza Aid Flotilla – video report by Democracy Now!
Sources other than survivors
*Chicago Tribune Article 2007
*Israeli communications said to prove IAF knew Liberty was U.S. ship, Yossi Melman, Ha'aretz, 4 October 2007.
*Captain Ward Boston (USN, Ret.), chief counsel to the Navy's Board of Inquiry interviewed on Electric Politics 29 June 2007
*A Juridical Examination of the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty by Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen, JAGC, USN
*San Diego Union-Tribune: Lifting the "fog of war" by David C. Walsh
*U.S. Navy and Marine Casualties in Wars, Conflicts, Terrorist Acts, and other Hostile Acts
*Conflicting comments rekindle Liberty dispute, Marine Corps Times, 26 June 2002, by Bryant Jordan
*The Moorer Report. Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government
*War Crimes Committed against U.S. Personnel, 8 June 1967
*The Day Israel Attacked America – Al Jazeera English special programme 2014/10/30
ツStacey (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources saying attack was deliberate

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on USS Liberty incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070628075318/http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/51668/3084841.pdf to http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/51668/3084841.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070704174443/http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/liber00007.pdf to http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/liber00007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821222114/http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/  to http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Friendly fire, definition?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unreliable Source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Advice vs Request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  USS Shangri La CVA 38