Whitewash on the USS Liberty incident, Jayjg's POV running amok again Options

[red85]

I found some concerning shenanigans around the page concerning the USS Liberty incident, the page about the attack by Israel on a US warship during Israel's Six-Day War with Egypt, an attack that killed 34 US sailors, and an accompanying article on Robert MacNamara, the then-current Secretary of Defense.

Someone (a SPA called "WorldFacts") added this para a week or so ago (somewhat de-wikified here):

Then Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara and President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] ordered Admiral Isaac B. Kidd, the President of the Navy Court of Inquiry into the attack on June 8, 1967 of the USS Liberty, to conclude that "the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." (1) Capt. Ward Boston USN, JAG (retired), states that "it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors...". (2)

(1) <ref> U. S. Congress. House (2004) Representative John Conyers, Jr. Speaking on the "Findings of Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on the 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". 109th Cong., 1st Session. Congressional Record 150, No. 130, Daily Edition (11 October 2004): E1886</ref>
(2) ibid, E1887</ref>

This information, in addition to being in the Congressional Record here, is also the subject of a BBC article (here), and an extensive Chicago tribune article.

But Jayjg wants it out, and no "Reliable Source" is going to convince him otherwise. In those diffs, he throws the wiki-book at the two sentences, labeling them "dubious POV" and "WP:NOR and WP:BLP violations" while reverting 3 (but not 4!) times. At the same time he (stalks WorldFacts over to the Robert McNamara page and) again reverts three times (here, here, and here), his last reversion the one that stands as of this writing.

But that's not all! Jayjg then tells WorldFacts that "this is your last warning" (turns out also his first warning), and labels the IP involved a sockpuppet of "FearNoTruth", a user with only three edits back in March'08. Also interestingly, we see admin Balloonman parachuting (no pun intended) into the situation to supply reverts and warnings without any previous involvement or notification. Jayjg, in placing the sock tag on FearNoTruth, simply cites the McNamara page as "evidence" for this socking charge, despite posessing the checkuser bit, a tacit acknowledgment that he has no evidence.

He then marks the IPs page and WorldTruth's as "patrolled" (I have no idea what this means, but it is more than vaguely menacing).

Now, certainly people can disagree over the historical record regarding the USS Liberty. Veterans of that incident claim, with near unanimity, that the attack was deliberate, and Israel denies it, mostly with a "why ever would be do that?" defense. The US government, in its more official pronouncements, has denied a cover-up. But the text being inserted is from a notable US Senator reading into the Congressional record a sworn statement from a Navy JAG officer with contemporaneous knowledge that "I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of ‘‘mistaken identity’’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.". Whether one accepts that evidence or not, the statement certainly seems "reliably sourced"!

And if you look into Jayjg's edit history, you can find an incident this blatant every month or so -- simply hammering down on facts in the encyclopedia that he doesn't like, using threats of banning and any other tool at his disposal to make the editor go away. The concern here is for exactly the opposite of either truth or verifiability -- it is to exclude opposing viewpoints and including his own. In virtually all of these cases, Jayjg prevails.

Yet another reason not to trust anything you read in Wikipedia. Obvious vandalism may be funny or offensive, but this kind of thing is sneaky and pernicious.

Check out the latest on the USS Liberty PAge --- JayJG and Narson and JzG teaming up on the editors who present the anti-Israeli truth. 24 hour bans. indefinite bans ... these guys trump all.

This post has been edited by red85: Fri 2nd January 2009, 3:34am

[EricBarbour]

Just document the whole affair, and leave it here.

Supposedly Jayjg does in fact read this subforum.
But would die rather than admit it.

[Cla68]

Just document the whole affair, and leave it here.

Supposedly Jayjg does in fact read this subforum.
But would die rather than admit it.

The article does actually appear to be a target of some POV pushers trying to use less-than-reliable sources.

[gomi]

The article does actually appear to be a target of some POV pushers trying to use less-than-reliable sources.

This is universally true of controversial articles, including those related to the Israel/Palestine conflict, Northern Ireland, Turkey/Armenia, and many others. They are the targets of partisans and fanatics from both sides, and those trying to sniff out some sort of academic middle ground generally get run off pretty quickly.

The difficulty comes in when an administrator -- indeed, one of WP's most powerful admins -- takes one of the partisan sides, rather than the side of academic distance and neutrality, and uses his tools, along with tag-teaming and other sub-rosa tactics, to tilt the article in a particular direction.

Truly, Wikipedia is beset by partisans, but I hold IP-vandals and pseudonymous admins equally to blame.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Eloquently stated. However, there are simple means of dealing with IP vandals, including semi-protection or range blocks. What Wikipedia needs now is a mechanism for restraining POV-pushing admins.

[gomi]

Jayjg is at it again. Citing "talk page consensus" (which definitively doesn't exist), he removes this paragraph from the article on the USS Liberty incident (T-H-L-K-D):

The Moorer Commission was a group of retired senior-level military and government officials who conducted an investigation of the USS Liberty attack. The Commission was composed of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), General of Marines Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia). Among the findings of the commission was that " there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk[20], Undersecretary of State George Ball[21], former CIA director Richard Helms[22], former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom[23], USA (Ret.) and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.)[24]...". The Commission's report includes an affidavit by Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAG (RET.), Senior Counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry. In the affidavit, Capt. Ward Boston states the he "knows from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd," (the President of the Navy Court of Inquiry into the attack on the USS Liberty, [25] that then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered Admiral Isaac C. Kidd Jr., to conclude that "the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."[26] [27] Capt. Ward Boston USN, JAG (retired), states that "it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors...". [28]

complete with six (count 'em!) references, including statements from the memoirs of S'cty of State Dean Rusk (T-H-L-K-D) and CIA director Richard Helms.

Jayjg just doesn't want this in the article, and no amount of sourcing is going to get in the way of his removal.

[that one guy]

Wow, probably one of the dumbest reasons to remove a part of an article I've ever seen: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=267072745

If we're allowed to do that, then how come we still have articles?

[Kato]

Jayjg is at it again. Citing "talk page consensus" (which definitively doesn't exist), he removes this paragraph from the article on the USS Liberty incident (T-H-L-K-D):

The Moorer Commission was a group of retired senior-level military and government officials who conducted an investigation of the USS Liberty attack. The Commission was composed of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), General of Marines Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia). Among the findings of the commission was that " there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk[20], Undersecretary of State George Ball[21], former CIA director Richard Helms[22], former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom[23], USA (Ret.) and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.)[24]...". The Commission's report includes an affidavit by Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAG (RET.), Senior Counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry. In the affidavit, Capt. Ward Boston states the he "knows from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd," (the President of the Navy Court of Inquiry into the attack on the USS Liberty, [25] that then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered Admiral Isaac C. Kidd Jr., to conclude that "the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."[26] [27] Capt. Ward Boston USN, JAG (retired), states that "it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors...". [28]

complete with six (count 'em!) references, including statements from the memoirs of S'cty of State Dean Rusk (T-H-L-K-D) and CIA director Richard Helms.

Jayjg just doesn't want this in the article, and no amount of sourcing is going to get in the way of his removal.

I think the problem is that the Moorer report is already covered several times in the article and the above was seen to be piling on the weight and unbalancing the article. I might be wrong in this though and I haven't given it a close look.

One of the regular things I noticed about weighty Wikipedia's history articles is that someone new carefully crafts a paragraph to explain some issue, not realizing that someone else has carefully written about it elsewhere - and all the smoothing and grafting has already taken place to add that previous section. When the new paragraph gets removed because of duplication, it is easy for people to suddenly appear shouting OMG censorship, without taking into consideration the flow of an article and the fact that the issue had already been covered elsewhere.

That article is way too long anyway. It barely made any sense on reading.

[that one guy]

I agree with the length, namely the lead. If you're going to have an article with several sections requiring a ToC, I would like to see it even when I have my screen on highest res (1440 x 900)

[Cla68]

I agree with the length, namely the lead. If you're going to have an article with several sections requiring a ToC, I would like to see it even when I have my screen on highest res (1440 x 900)

Why doesn't one of those editors set to improving this article by making it look more professional, such as by making it more coherent, better organized, and non-repetitive? Like I said before, it's on my list to bring it up to FA-level quality, but it'll probably be at least six-months to a year before I get to it.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 29th January 2009, 12:03am

[EricBarbour]

Why doesn't one of those editors set to improving this article by making it look more professional, such as by making it more coherent, better organized, and non-repetitive? Like I said before, it's on my list to bring it up to FA-level quality, but it'll probably be at least six-months to a year before I get to it.

And Jayjg knows it, and feels free to act with impunity.

[Cla68]

Why doesn't one of those editors set to improving this article by making it look more professional, such as by making it more coherent, better organized, and non-repetitive? Like I said before, it's on my list to bring it up to FA-level quality, but it'll probably be at least six-months to a year before I get to it.

And Jayjg knows it, and feels free to act with impunity.

There's enough information out there (I've already checked, and Greg Kohs has helped me out also) to easily take that article to FA-level quality. It just needs someone with the time and motivation to do so. Once completed, it will, to the best of my ability if I'm the one that does it, present the entire issue, including the debate over whether the attack on the Liberty was an accident or intentional.

There's no reason why more Israeli history related articles can't also be taken to FA-level quality (Jayjg, by the way, has been the primary editor on four FAs). It just seems that many, if not most, of the editors involved in that subject are more interested in pushing their POV than in producing quality articles. In fact, that's a problem throughout Wikipedia and may be one of the biggest issues facing any collaborative wiki project.

[Dzonatas]

Just a side note: http://ussliberty.wordpress.com/2009/01/14...emy-number-one/
From one of the survivors.

[gomi]

Another note -- one of the active editors on the article, and not accidentally one that had the temerity to revert Jayjg, has blocked WorldFacts (T-C-L-K-R-D) for "legal threats". What the guy said was "litigation is in order" -- referring, as is regularly done the stupid Wiki-newspaper, to ArbCom. For his trouble, he's now blocked forever.

This is how scores are settled on Wikipedia.

[Milton Roe]

Wow, probably one of the dumbest reasons to remove a part of an article I've ever seen: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=267072745

If we're allowed to do that, then how come we still have articles?

Well, apparently it could and should be Israelipedia. The Hebrew Wikipedia is not enough; it's not necessarily read by all the right people.

I didn't have Jayjg (along with SlimVirgin and Jpgordon) define the Klassic Kabal for nothing!

[Luís Henrique]

I've never swallowed the "Jayjg is paid by Mossad" line. He's too unsubtle to be a professional.

The Mossad doesn't need to pay people to do that; too many people would willingly do it for free. It is much easier to find an American citizen harshly criticising the American military or politics, than the Israeli military or politics.

I don't know why, and no, I don't believe in a Jewish conspiracy.

Luís Henrique

[thekohser]

I don't know if I mentioned this publicly, but I had written a rather shabby college paper about the USS Liberty incident, comparing it to the USS Stark incident. I posted it in PDF form to Wikipedia Review, so that Cla68 could take a gander.

Well, I just think it's kind of eerie how Google even "spies" into PDF images and is able to transcribe the shapes of words into only-slightly-disjointed text for search purposes.

Page 1. The USS Liberty and the USS Stark : Л Twenty-Year ySstery of Tragi©
Mistakes A Research Paper Written by Gregory J. Kohs

It's hard not to be impressed with our Google overlords.

[EricBarbour]

I don't know if I mentioned this publicly, but I had written a rather shabby college paper about the USS Liberty incident, comparing it to the USS Stark incident. I posted it in PDF form to Wikipedia Review, so that Cla68 could take a gander.
Well, I just think it's kind of eerie how Google even "spies" into PDF images and is able to transcribe the shapes of words into only-slightly-disjointed text for search purposes.

Heh. Well, you could always:

(1) not post it online
(2) post it in encrypted or encoded form
(3) join Brandt in Unabombering Google. I'm kinda tempted to do that myself.