| Revision as of 08:49, 30 August 2009 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 7.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:10, 30 August 2009 edit undo71.243.119.32 (talk) →Discussion of the Tribune ArticleNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
| I tried my best. Its still an unwieldy section. Perhaps breaking it up into one section about the arguments that people make, and another section about direct evidence would be helpful, but I'll leave that to somebody else.] (]) 20:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | I tried my best. Its still an unwieldy section. Perhaps breaking it up into one section about the arguments that people make, and another section about direct evidence would be helpful, but I'll leave that to somebody else.] (]) 20:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Discussion of the Tribune Article == | |||
| The section about the Tribune Article has been modified by WLRoss in a way that changes its emphasis. Previously the focus was on the testimony of numerous US military and intelligence personnel who are quoted as saying that they had first hand knowledge of smoking gun evidence of Israeli intent, and that this evidence has never been released. | |||
| In my opinion that is the central thrust and importance of the article, and it should not be diluted with conjectural quotes about Israeli intent. | |||
| Speaking personally, the Tribune article single handedly changed my mind about this issue. Either it is seriously flawed, or the US government engaged in a deliberate coverup of evidence implicating Israel. It is rare to see a newspaper article with so much first hand evidence about an issue like this. | |||
| I am not about to change the chronological ordering of the article, but I do think that the Tribune article deserves greater prominence. | |||
| Adding the NSA quotes (which merely add more statements of incredulity by US officials to an article that already has plenty) in the middle of this section distracts from the main thrust and importance of the Tribune article. | |||
| Accordingly, I am removing them. I am not necessarily saying that the quotes don't belong in the article. But in their present location they serve only to make the Tribune article look like a rehash of earlier treatments of the attack on the USS Liberty, not a source of new evidence.] (]) 13:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| OK, I had a go at it. To clarify, I'm certainly not saying that other parts of the Tribune article are unimportant. But to the extent that the Tribune article repeats information that was otherwise available elsewhere (including in other parts of this article), this repetition probably isn't relevant to this article (which is about what happened to the Liberty more than about how it is covered). | |||
| To the extent that the Tribune article provides significant new information about what the US knew about the attack it is very significant. That information should be presented separately from information contained in the NSA document releases (which contradict it). I hope that my changes achieve this separation.] (]) 18:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:10, 30 August 2009
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Liberty incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | USS Liberty incident is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.jpg)
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 8, 2004 and June 8, 2007. |
 Archives | ||||||||
Index
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Word usage: "Critics" (Weasel Words)
While reviewing the article, I noticed frequent usage of the word "critics" in writing that deals with the attack being possibly not an innocent mistake. Typical usage involves phrases like: "Critics of Israel claim..." and "Critics of the attack claim..."
The true meaning of the word "critic" is one who offers a reasoned judgment, analysis, interpretation or observation that may or may not be supportive of a given matter or object. But often the word is applied to someone who adhere to a position that is in strong disagreement or opposition to a matter or object. And as sometimes used within this article, the word "citric" takes on a pejorative meaning.
There are true critics on all sides of this matter. Thus, to limit the word to only those who do not support the innocent mistake claim is a subtle POV writing style. To remedy this problem, perhaps phrases like the ones cited above can be fixed by simply dropping them or substituting words for "critics" that have a positive connotation, words like: "observers," "researchers," or "analysts."
There may be times when it's truly necessary to distinguish between the "believers" and "non-believers" of attack due to innocent mistake. In this case, perhaps one could use phrases like: "mistaken attack supporters" and "non-mistaken attack supporters".
Generally, I'm not completely opposed to using the word "critics" -- it's a perfectly good word when used sparingly and well-applied. But it can quickly become a "bad" word when overused or misapplied.Ken (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, phrases like "critics claim", or even the suggested "researchers claim", are weasel word phrases that have no place in a purportedly fact-based article.Ken (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I performed several edits to remove Weasel Word statments and a bit of associated OR. During the edits, I restructured some content in an attempt to enhance clarity.Ken (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If anybody can find and cite specific sources for the Weasel Word statements I removed, I encourage you to restructure and reinstate the statements with specific sources instead of Weasel Word statements like "critics claim."Ken (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a problm with the removals really. Especially as part of it was blatantly that OR sneaking in again ('look at the two ships and draw your own conclusions!') --Narson ~ Talk • 09:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Reliable Sources all say that Israel knew what it was doing
All the genuine material proving that Israel knew what it was doing has been taken out of the article replaced by garbage. And all the discsussion on the proof has been hidden in the archive - here's a block of it - what are people afraid of?
| Editor | Book date & publisher | Number of cites by Google Scholar | Typical argument/comment (Green accident, Red Not an Accident. Orange is book not in Google Scholar) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bamford | "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-secret National ...", 2001 - Doubleday (+ "Body of secrets" Arrow & "Body of Secrets: How America's NSA and Britain's GCHQ Eavesdrop on the World", 2001 Century) | 57 (+ 18 to 2nd book + 6 to 3rd book. on related topics) | "Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel attacked the ship and killed American servicemen deliberately, the Johnson Administration and Congress covered up the entire incident." Find Articles. |
| Green, Stephen | "Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel", 1984 Morrow | 26 cites | "Sometime in the late afternoon or early evening of June 7 ... the NSA learned, from an intelligence report emanating from the Office of the US Defense Attache in Tel Aviv, that Israel was planning to attack the Liberty if her course was not changed." p.215, cited by Ennes at ussliberty.org. |
| A Bregman | "A History of Israel" 2003, Palgrave Macmillan (+ "The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs", 1998, Penguin) | 7 from hardcopy (+ 10 to 2nd book) | "A short but significant recording of a conversation over the radio link between Israeli pilots and the Air Force headquarters during the attack on Liberty, published here for the first time, shows beyond doubt, that the Israelis did know, even in the initial stages of their strike on Liberty, that this was an American vessel."Preface to 2002 edition, p.xiii of "Israel's Wars A history since 1947" |
| JM Ennes | "Assault on the Liberty: The True Story of the Israeli Attack on an American Intelligence Ship", 1979 - Random House | 5 cites | "US Air Force intercept operators heard Israeli jet being vectored to "the American ship" which they were ordered to sink quickly. Those who have seen these transcripts insist that they leave no doubt that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship." ussliberty.org |
| John Loftus | "The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People" St. Martin's Griffin, 1997 | 10 cites to 1997 paperback, 0 cites hardback of 1995 | A well-reviewed book from a Zionist perspective: "This is why the Israelis knocked out the American surveillance ship the USS Liberty, though at the time all sides agreed it was an accident"John-Loftus.com/bookreview.asp (I'm placing this well-cited book below others that are not so well-cited, since its RS may be compromised by being "popular". Its reputation may still exceed that of the next book in this list.) |
| AJ Cristol | "The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Israeli Attack on the US Navy Spy Ship", 2002, Brassey (and in Google-books version "The Liberty Incident") | 1 cite to Brassey hardcopy (+ 0 cites |
"Ten official U.S. investigations and three official Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence to establish that it was not a tragic mistake. Seven U. S. Presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, and Clinton have all accepted the conclusion that the attack was a tragic mistake.” |
| Admiral Moorer | Moorer Report 2003 | Have blanked this entry, it is not a book, and TalkPage discussion suggests there is only web evidence for citations by historians/researchers (at least so far). | |
| Hart, Alan (reporting for ITN 1967, later BBC) | Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews v.2. WorldFocus, 2007 | The author of this book is likely well regarded, but it is not (yet?) in Google Scholar | p.138 "At about 2200 hours ... Israeli jets were homing their rockets ... an hour or so earlier ... U.S. Defence Attache in Tel Aviv ... to the U.S. Army Communications Centre in Washington ... IDF was planning to attack ... move closer to the Israeli coast" |
| Joseph Daichman | "History of the Mossad" (in Russian, may have been translated c. 2002) | Not in Scholar, author unknown in English except for this book | A book in Russian is alleged by Russian submariner Captain Nikolay Charkashin to state "Israel was justified in attacking the Liberty." UnitedStatesGovernment.Net |
| CIA informant | Published 1977 in US (& in Cristol, though contradicts claim that fills Chapter 11 of his book that Dayan was in West Bank at the time) | Known to have multiple citations | "" said that Dayan personally ordered the attack on the ship and that one of his generals adamantly opposed the action and said, 'This is pure murder.' One of the admirals who was present also disapproved of the action, and it was he who ordered it stopped and not Dayan." |
81.144.199.142 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you look more into the (now indef blocked) user who compiled the list. It was constructed with a slant and picks and chooses so as to back up his view point. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty good getting this careful compiler and researcher kicked off. There's lots more in the archive demonstrates the same thing, only one point of view allowed and dissenters silienced. 81.144.199.142 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the user who made the table was User:PalestineRemembered . Can't see any evidence from his block log, page or elsewhere that he has been indef banned or blocked, and he seems to be in good standing, but hasn't edited since February.John Z (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is it? I was fairly sure it originally came from HenryWinklestein. My mistake if so, and apologies to PR for the mistake. It does not take away from the table being from selective sources in order to back up a view point. It ignores, for example, the US Government and the Israeli Government (Both of whom are reliable sources, it would appear). It ignores quite a few historical books on the war as well. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the user who made the table was User:PalestineRemembered . Can't see any evidence from his block log, page or elsewhere that he has been indef banned or blocked, and he seems to be in good standing, but hasn't edited since February.John Z (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty good getting this careful compiler and researcher kicked off. There's lots more in the archive demonstrates the same thing, only one point of view allowed and dissenters silienced. 81.144.199.142 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO, the purpose of this article (or any Wiki article) is not to prove or disprove anything. Rather, it's supposed to provide a well-balanced, accurate and coherent presentation of information and opinions by reliable secondary or primary sources.Ken (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Strange paragraph at end of "Ongoing controversy and unresolved questions"
The last paragraph:
From the early 1950s up to shortly before the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel's primary military ally was France. The United States, with a few exceptions, consistently refused requests for sales of offensive weapons to Israel until 1968. The height of French-Israeli cooperation was in the 1956 Suez war, when France, Israel and the United Kingdom participated in a combined ground, sea and air offensive against Egypt, despite stringent opposition from the United States and threats from the Soviet Union.
Seems to be out of context. If it is somehow relevant, I'd like to discuss it here. Until then I am deleting it because it confuses the reader without adding anything of value.71.243.119.32 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed John Stenbit Quote due to context
The John Stenbit quote:
In a presentation given at Harvard University on March 13, 2003, Assistant Secretary for Defense John Stenbit, claimed that the Israelis had warned the United States to move the USS Liberty or they would sink it within 24 hours. The Liberty was not warned because it took more than 24 hours for the information to go through official channels.
gives the impression that John Stenbit independently (and in an official capacity) corroborates this account. As a review of the second reference (the first is presently broken) shows, Stenbit is engaged in a discussion of military communications. The link cites A Jay Cristol as the source. As Cristol is already extensively discussed here, the quote is unnecessary.
Worse, in its present context the quote gives the impression that Stenbit's comments were A) an independent corroboration and B) made in an official capacity. Neither of these is true.71.243.119.32 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Minor edits
I'm going to make several additional edits: many of them due to the apparent after effects of a past merge. If there is a problem with any of them, please comment here.71.243.119.32 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried my best. Its still an unwieldy section. Perhaps breaking it up into one section about the arguments that people make, and another section about direct evidence would be helpful, but I'll leave that to somebody else.71.243.119.32 (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of the Tribune Article
The section about the Tribune Article has been modified by WLRoss in a way that changes its emphasis. Previously the focus was on the testimony of numerous US military and intelligence personnel who are quoted as saying that they had first hand knowledge of smoking gun evidence of Israeli intent, and that this evidence has never been released.
In my opinion that is the central thrust and importance of the article, and it should not be diluted with conjectural quotes about Israeli intent.
Speaking personally, the Tribune article single handedly changed my mind about this issue. Either it is seriously flawed, or the US government engaged in a deliberate coverup of evidence implicating Israel. It is rare to see a newspaper article with so much first hand evidence about an issue like this.
I am not about to change the chronological ordering of the article, but I do think that the Tribune article deserves greater prominence.
Adding the NSA quotes (which merely add more statements of incredulity by US officials to an article that already has plenty) in the middle of this section distracts from the main thrust and importance of the Tribune article.
Accordingly, I am removing them. I am not necessarily saying that the quotes don't belong in the article. But in their present location they serve only to make the Tribune article look like a rehash of earlier treatments of the attack on the USS Liberty, not a source of new evidence.72.74.91.141 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I had a go at it. To clarify, I'm certainly not saying that other parts of the Tribune article are unimportant. But to the extent that the Tribune article repeats information that was otherwise available elsewhere (including in other parts of this article), this repetition probably isn't relevant to this article (which is about what happened to the Liberty more than about how it is covered).
To the extent that the Tribune article provides significant new information about what the US knew about the attack it is very significant. That information should be presented separately from information contained in the NSA document releases (which contradict it). I hope that my changes achieve this separation.71.243.119.32 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- An excerpt from a presentation by The Honorable John Stenbit, Assistant Secretary for Defense C3I, given at Harvard University
- Stenbit, John (2003), "A Conversation with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3I John P. Stenbit", Seminar on Intelligence, Command, and Control. (PDF), Harvard University, p. 4
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class intelligence articles
- Intelligence task force articles
- B-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- Selected anniversaries (June 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2007)