Talk:USS Liberty incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Liberty incident article.
•Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). •Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. •New to Wikipedia?Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. •This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
•Be polite •Assume good faith •No personal attacks •Be welcoming
Article policies
•No original research •Neutral point of view •Verifiability
Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
[image: 50px-Cscr-former.svg.png] 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.
August 21, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class)
[image: MILHIST] This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces:
[image: 18px-Exquisite-kfind.png]
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
•[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Referencing and citation: criterion met •[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Coverage and accuracy: criterion met •[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Structure: criterion met •[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Grammar: criterion met •[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Supporting materials: criterion met
[image: 18px-Exquisite-kfind.png]
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Associated task forces (general topics):
[image: 43px-Janeskh11leakedphoto.jpg]
Intelligence task force
[image: 37px-Napoleon%281850%29.jpg]
Maritime warfare task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
[image: 34px-Middle_East_geographic.jpg]
Middle Eastern military history task force
[image: 27px-United_States_Arms.svg.png]
United States military history task force
WikiProject Ships (Rated B-Class)
[image: 60px-USS_Constitution_1997.jpg] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. [image: 60px-Queen_Mary_2_03_KMJ.jpg]
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale
Additional information:
[image: 18px-Exquisite-kfind.png]
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
•[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Referencing and citation: criterion met •[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Coverage and accuracy: criterion met •[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Structure: criterion met •[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Grammar: criterion met •[image: 16px-Orange_check.svg.png] Supporting materials: criterion met
[image: Archive] Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Contents

•1Attempt at mediation
•1.1Agree •1.2Neutral •1.3Disagree
•1.3.1Arbitary Break - purpose of mediation
•1.3.1.1PR error - decision was 5 to 2 against
•1.4Break 2 - confidence in mediation
•21RR Probation •3War Crimes Committed Against US Military Personnel, June 8, 1967 •4Soviet ship •5Fairplay and Balance in the Application of WP Policy •6Confusing Caption for Image at Article Head

[edit]Attempt at mediation

Guys, if we can all settle down here, I'd like to assist and perhaps reduce the animosity and squabbling here. If you agree to the following terms of mediation, I will be happy to assist.
•A basic outline of this incident must be agreed upon before substantive changes can be made. Without a basic outline, changes will be haphazard and will only lead to more problems. The exact content is not as important at this stage as the fact that a basic structure can be established from which we can all work. •Once an outline is agreed upon, we will go ahead with restructuring the article (either in a minor way or a major overhaul as needed)
•The content of the paragraphs must conform to Wikipedia standards to include WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, etc. •We will likely not 100% agree on every point, but realize that dissenting points of view have value too and, if appropriate, should be included with due weight
•Once the paragraphs are completed, we will work together to form a cohesive and appropriate lead •Those involved in the heavy edit warring (both sides) are only serving to inflame the situation. By adding/deleting content not agreed upon, it appears as if there is a lone wolf savaging an article. By reverting the same said changes it appears to be a tit-for-tat (read "petty") approach to the edits made. By slowing down and working together on an amicable compromise, we can create an appropriate document. Accordingly, no one (including myself) will make an edit to the page without first proposing it here and waiting 24 hours as a show of good faith towards fellow wikipedians.
Is this a formal mediation through the mediation cabal or your own initiative? You are aware that I've asked for a review to identify the issues with the article? Justintalk 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a formal anything. It's just one guy trying to help out. I am aware of your efforts. — BQZip01 — talk 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Despite having rejected you as mediator below, I like your ideas of a basic outline of this article (you did mean to refer to article, you didn't mean incident did you?) agreed first, then do the paragraphs, then do the lead. I believe that the three sources claiming that Israel warned the US it would attack the Liberty (plus one source "knew that Israel would attack") needs its own section. The fourth source I've only just discovered is the Israeli-friendly Bergman in the Google-book version of his "Israel's Wars". I attempted a BRD on this element, it was hit with two reverts quick enough, but there's been no policy based discussion whatsoever. I wonder if you fully understood that this kind of conduct would have immediately made your position as mediator extremely fraught, if not impossible. PRtalk 15:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
PR? You seem to have a misunderstanding with BRD. Bold-Revert-Discuss. What you did was Bold-Revert-Revert-Revert-Discuss. After the revert, you should have discussed not reverted back in. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to put one of these excellent sources in (a top journalist, specialising in the ME, who was reporting from Israel at the time), then another one (a very well-cited specialist on US intelligence), I've now come across a third (this last one being "pro-Israel" and also much better regarded than the current "authority" that the article is largely written around). I'm waiting for WP policy to apply and this article being written to the RS, or a serious discussion on which of these sources is RS. Unfortunately, it's clear that a mediator in the position of BKZip is far too vulnerable to pressure. A pity, there are less and less true outsiders to come and defend the project in the robust way that it needs. PRtalk 18:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea where you think the pressure would come from. My military background has nothing to do directly with the subject at hand. Furthermore, I have no authority to mandate any changes in the article. I cannot issue edicts and demand things only be done a certain way. That is up to you and the other editors. The only thing I'm trying to do is reduce the conflict and help find an amicable solution for all. In that capacity, my background is irrelevant. I have dealt with POV editors in the past (both sides) and realize that this is not an easy challenge. — BQZip01 — talk 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest we stop with paranoid conspiracy theories about black helicopters landing to pressure BQZip and don't try to mother BQZip either. He is old enough to decide whether he wants to fly aerodynamically unstable bits of metal strapped ontop of a seat filled with rocket motors and explosives, surrounded by explosives bolts, ontop of ammunition that explodes and jet fuel (Which also explodes)...then I'm fairly sure he is old enough to decide whether he wants to get involved in a wiki article. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I used to be in AFSOC, but all of our helicopters are painted a dark grey and we actually retired them this year, so, that was the last "black" government helicopter I've been near. Everyone lighten up a little. As for the rest of your assessment, I resent your implication that we have explosive bolts. :-) — BQZip01 — talk 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit]Agree

If you agree, please sign below:
•— BQZip01 — talk 20:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) •--Narson ~ Talk • 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC) •Justintalk 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC) •Wayne (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC) •Jayjg(talk) 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC) •Nudve (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit]Neutral

If you do not wish to participate, but will not interfere, please sign below here.

[edit]Disagree

If you will not participate in such a discussion/collaboration, please sign below and state your rationale.
•Sorry - I find it near enough impossible to believe that a 30 year old in the USAF can afford the career threatening repercussions if he allows this mediation to proceed normally and produce an article to the sources. It must be fairly clear that this article, when it's written to policy, will more-or-less mirror what was said in a 1995 issue of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence - "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel’s assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately". Under these conditions, I'm afraid to say that this article will only be a credit to the project with over-sight from a neut (or, if all else fails, a Brit). Even then, a serving military person from anywhere in the West may be compromised (I'm sorry to issue this warning, I will accept corrections). We know that Boston and Moorer (at least), despite feeling very, very strongly about the affair, refused to speak until they were retired. Please note, this is not a criticism of BQZip who looks exactly like a truly uninvolved editor offering his services in perfectly good faith. His good faith in almost identifying himself is, very sadly, what renders him pretty much completely out of contention. PRtalk 10:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to your own opinions, but me working on mediating an article on Wikipedia has nothing to do with my career. Should there be something that is career-compromising, I would weigh the implications before proceeding and that would be my call. As an example, if my commander were accused of doing something by the local paper, I could state on Wikipedia that the local paper accused (or reported the accusation) of my commander. That is a simple fact and is in no way threatening to my career.
Likewise, I have no intention of directly adding or deleting material from this article unless it is merely cosmetic/grammatical in nature. My role as a mediator is to help two (or more) groups of editors to come to a consensus as to how an article should be stated. Stating that a report says "XYZ" is exactly how we should do things in Wikipedia anyway. If we do it through footnotes or directly in the text, it is immaterial and a matter of writer choice/consensus.
What concerns me most is "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel’s assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately." If that is the end-all of your stance and that nothing else can be discussed, we are starting this mediation at an impasse. That doesn't mean you have to agree to the findings of any earlier studies/reports, but that they did exist and we should include the information contained in them.
As an example, even the statement above can be taken in many different ways:
•Israel's government conspired to deliberately attack the USS Liberty •Israel's military conspired to deliberately attack the USS Liberty •Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty thinking it was another country's ship. •Those involved directly in the attack on the USS Liberty attacked it knowing it was a US ship, but higher-ups didn't know. •Those involved directly in the attack on the USS Liberty attacked it not knowing it was a US ship, but higher-ups did know. •etc. Add this PR alternative - some sources say the government/Eshkol was determined to avoid the Six-Day war, the military/Dayan grabbed the Defense Portfolio and simply went ahead with one, a political coup. (More than a minority opinon? Whether/exactly how included?). •etc. •etc.
My point is that the quote needs to be placed within context. Is it a scholarly report done a few decades after the incident by academics? Did they view photos/video? Did they talk with witnesses? Did they view hard evidence? etc. The same goes for earlier reports. All of this information should be summarized and placed in context without giving undue weight to any one side, in line with WP policy/guidelines. PR -> The article is currently written with huge UNDUE, so there's no point in a mediator unless they're prepared to guide editors regarding it - they'll also need to identify disruption.
Your view that "I'm afraid to say that this article will only be a credit to the project with over-sight from a neut (or, if all else fails, a Brit)." is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Reasonable people can disagree about things and still reach a compromise. Two perfect examples of this are the articles about the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and Aggie Bonfire (I am not trying to toot my own horn here, but I'm using it as an example because it works in this situation and it is something with which I am familiar). I was a primary contributor for these two articles when they went through the Featured Article process. They were mercilessly scrutinized for details/sources/formatting/grammar/etc by a lot of people. In some instances, things had to be toned down and changed. Others had to be expounded upon. In Aggie Bonfire, another article was forked off of this article to give details that weren't necessary in the parent article (this may be an ideal solution in this case to include extensive details on points of contention while still maintaining the neutrality of the article).
I fail to see how "a serving military person from anywhere in the West may be compromised (I'm sorry to issue this warning, I will accept corrections)." Boston and Moorer were expressing official opinions on the subject and, as members of the Executive branch of the US Government were required to do as ordered. PR-> Need mediator to help with policy, not fully grasp the specific issues - let misunderstanding pass for now. I am not offering any opinion or official position on anything. I am simply stating what others' opinions are. I understand this is not intended as a criticism of me, but I believe that it is simply a misunderstanding of the situation at hand and the American military system/government in general.
If you have any additional questions, feel free to further inquire. If what I've said does not change your mind, I thank you for your time and wish all of you the best of luck in the future. If it does, please feel free to review/revise your comments. — BQZip01 — talk 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The claim of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence is obviously not the last word on the matter. (Incidentally, the JVL, a thoroughly unreliable propaganda source within which denialism and fraud is readily apparent, apparently accepts this 1995 conclusion was true back then, claiming only that it's refuted by later information).
However, our USS Liberty incident article as it now stands is clearly worthless, with one poorly regarded source given hugely UNDUE over all the others.
Under these circumstances, the only form of "mediation" that will work is someone pro-active, prepared to demand answers to questions and confront the wiki-lawyering and accusations of antisemitism that blight every attempt to write this article properly.
If you or anyone needs an example of a "mediation" that was successfully manipulated to fatally damage an article, drive out scholarly contributions, and drive off the scholarly editor who was trying to write the article to reliable sources, have a look here. First of all, note that this was a content dispute dating from August 2007 (if not much earlier) - in October I tabulated this, indicating that there was either 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 in favour of including Norman Finkelstein as a source. (Slight modifications here, still at least 4 in favour, 2 unsure).
Despite this overwhelming agreement, edit-warring continued and mediation was insisted on, beginning 12th November. Look first at the lead statement of one party which begins "I agree with most of the academics in the field of Middle Eastern history when I say that Norman Finkelstein is an unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst." Unbelievably, no attempt was ever made to defend this hard-line and consensus-defying statement. (At one stage 6 weeks later, I contacted the mediator with "I am becoming alarmed at the very dubious tactics now on display at this mediation - edits such as this look like flat out falsehoods made to poison the atmosphere and defy anyone else to label them as lies." The only result of my expressing my concern was a threat to withdraw from the mediation and hold up agreement indefinitely - the mediator would not and perhaps could not enforce any substantive discussion of any of the points raised).
In January 2008, with no evidence ever presented that NF was anything other than a reliable source it appears that GHcool accepted that he was indeed an RS (ie the exact position there had been 5 months earlier from at least 4 editors with 1 objector and no more than two undecided). However, this position was only granted as a "compromise", and every statement from NF still had to be individually "mediated" through the process. The immensely patient JaapBoBo continued trying to do the right thing (remember, nobody was allowed to help him, anything from any other editor would be "interference" and would stop the mediation) until April, when he abandoned the process (indeed, abandoned the project) in disgust.
If people still don't recognise how shocking was that case (remember, this is 1 editor blocking and finally overcoming at least 4 other editors over a period of at least 8 months) or how abject was the surrender of the mediator, consider this. All the time that the use of NF was blocked (he is still blocked from that article and many others), his nemesis at this article was edit-warring into this very same article the scandalously unpleasant and untrue quotation ("Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands.") and allegations ("Fear psychosis" means victim is diseased) from a known falsifier.
Now, I don't think Cristol is a falsifier to anywhere near the extent of Schechtmann and, unlike Schechtman, Cristol deserves to be quoted (we might even stretch things and treat him "fairly", despite the concerns about him and his work). However, in the scholarly literature, Cristol is a bit part player, cited by almost nobody (in fact, the hard-copy version of his book is apparently not cited atall, only his web-sitethe google.book version) whereas the top rank of reliable historians/sources are extensively referenced by others. Several of these other sources claim that, not only did Israel know that the USS Liberty was American, the US knew the Liberty was to be attacked from the night before, some 15 hours earlier.
So, what is the way forwards if others join me in rejecting your kind and genuine offer to mediate? Answer, we need a mediator (either an admin or backed by admins) who will demand answers to questions, and/or stop the disruptive nature of the conduct we're seeing.
The other alternative is to design a new tag "This article has not been written in compliance with WP policies and there seems little chance of it ever being anything more than Hasbara" and apply it to this article (and others). PRtalk 12:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
PR, was that you inserting material from Alan Hart's blog, and from his self-published polemic Zionism: The real enemy of the Jews?[1] And at the same time you're soapboxing and BLP violating on this page again, this time about Cristol etc.? Please desist from "the disruptive nature of the conduct we're seeing." Jayjg(talk) 02:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, that is what we are to discuss and fix. Furthermore, there is plenty in the article that is salvageable. Many of the facts are not in dispute. The USS Liberty was a US flag ship. It was attacked by the Israelis. The attack caused deaths. There has always been controversy about the event. etc. It is a matter of what to replace and how. If I am to help in the mediation, we will discuss those on a case-by-case basis and come up with appropriate wording for appropriate sources. That said, unless you are willing to go through mediation with the above set guidelines, we are at an impasse. It sounds to me like you have plenty of reasons behind your logic. I have no problem with that and it seems like some form of what you state should certainly be included, but that is a discussion for later. I think you misunderstand the role of a mediator or an admin. You cannot demand answers to questions, but we can build consensus and come up with something appropriate. The role of a mediator is to be a facilitator. Should an admin become a mediator, he/she is involved in the discussion, they are not allowed to block someone with whom they have a dispute. What they would do for someone who is being disruptive (vandalism, violations of WP:AGF, WP:RS, etc) is report them to an appropriate forum where an uninvolved admin would review the circumstances and apply policy accordingly. I would do the same. The fact that I am not an admin is of little importance.
All I have to say about the situation is, why not? What do you have to lose? — BQZip01 — talk 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Since I've now had an opportunity to see how my edits are to be opposed, I can break down my concerns into two distinct parts:
First...