Jump to content

Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Liberty survivors' views

The article currently states that "reports [..] concluded the attack was a mistake [...], though others, including some of the ship's survivors, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate." (my bolding). As written, this implies that most survivors do not maintain that the attack was deliberate. As far as I know, that is simply not true. In addition, the source [1] do not support it either, as it says that "To a man, the survivors interviewed by the Tribune rejected Israel's explanation" . --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "others, including some of the ship's survivors, have rejected these conclusions" does not logically imply that "most survivors do not maintain that the attack was deliberate". And the fact that "survivors interviewed by the Tribune rejected Israel's explanation" does not lead to any conclusion regarding the proportion of survivors not holding this view. Marokwitz (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Make it "...others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected... ". the Tribune did not interview every survivor, so its wrong to infer that every survivor is of the opinion. But anyway the detail should be in the article body and the lede should summarize. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The Tribune interviewed every survivor still living at the time of the interview. Wayne (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
That not what the source says.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I know first-hand, via communication with several survivors, that not every living survivor was interviewed.Ken (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I implemented GraemeLeggett's proposal. Frederico1234 (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Number of casualties

Something's wrong. It says only 8 crewmen were killed immediately or fatally wounded in the air attacks, but then goes on to say that 25 were killed in the torpedo attack. This would mean only 33 were killed, whereas we know there were actually 34 dead. Either the death toll from the air attack or the torpedo blast needs to be bumped up by one number, and most sources seem to state that only 25 died in the torpedo blast, so it should be 9 killed in the air attacks.--RM (Be my friend) 19:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Reenem, on page 29 of the NSA report, it explains that when the torpedo boats shelled Liberty, the helmsman was killed. I highly recommend carefully reading both the IDF and NSA history reports, and using them as prime references; other secondary sources are sometimes less than clear or accurate with details.Ken (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's an Internet source for the helmsman's Navy Cross citation: http://militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=4447 Ken (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I added killing of helmsman to the article. Now the casualty count equals 34 dead.Ken (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding recent edits involving sequence-of-events placement of above fact, I suggest reading the source. According to the source, I placed this fact in accordance to sequence-of-events stated by the source. I'm aware of an eyewitness who says Francis Brown (the helmsman) was killed after the torpedo hit, while the torpedo boats strafed the ship, but that is not in accordance with the source's sequence-of-events or contained in Brown's Navy Cross citation.Ken (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a good example of conflicting facts by different secondary sources. In James Scott's book, he wrote (pages 77 & 78) that Brown was killed after the torpedo hit, during strafing by the motor torpedo boats. Scott cited two eyewitness sources: interview statements and Court of Inquiry testimony (pages 15 & 25) of the Gunnery Officer, Ensign Lucas, who testified that he was on the command bridge during the boat's strafing attack and took over the helm after Brown was killed; and interview statements by former Petty Officer Second Class Charles Conavitch, who said he was a Radarman in the Combat Information Center, adjacent to the command bridge, during the torpedo boat strafing attack and dragged Brown's body away from the helm.
I have no way to validate Conavitch's interview statements, but Lucas' testimony is easily validated by reading the Court of Inquiry record of testimony. Thus, this is reliable reporting by Scott.
The primary source for this event in NSA History Report is not cited; thus, it cannot be validated to judge whether or not it is reliable reporting. But based on the above Court of Inquiry testimony by Lucas, it appears unreliable. On the other hand, the NSA History Report's sequence-of-events aligns well with Commander McGonagle's Court of Inquiry testimony. Regardless, the source for this event is not cited and, thus, cannot be validated.
Whether Lucas' or McGonagle's sequence-of-events is the truth, is not at issue. The issue is validation of cited sources to test for reliable reporting. Since Scott's source can be validated and the NSA History Report cites no source, it seems to me that Scott's sequence-of-events should dominate.Ken (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the issue of casualties, how about the article itself? There's a significant amount of purported factual information, sprinkled throughout the article, that simply cannot be validated by primary sources or any of the prime investigation reports. I realize that M. Oren, et al are considered reliable secondary sources, but some of what they say simply can't be validated or it's contradicted elsewhere. In my view, it's wrong to present non-validated information in a matter-of-fact manner; instead, it should be prefaced by adverbs like, "Purportedly". I realize this will involve editors performing validation research, but this should be SOP for any editor. To clarify: whether or not anything any primary or secondary source reports is true or not is not at issue, but at least what a secondary source reports as fact should be backed-up by one or more verifiable primary sources; otherwise, the secondary source's "facts" should either not appear in Wiki or should be somehow clearly identified as being non-validated.Ken (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Useful info

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident → USS Liberty attack – This was a proposed move by edit which I neither support nor oppose. Apteva (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from self-pointing, how is it common? -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Your well used italics do not say so. (It does not say 'by' Liberty). This supports the change. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Better: "USS Liberty attack", a ships name it is. The word "attack" should stay. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Generally in English usage when the word "attack" is preceded by a noun, the noun is the attacker, e.g. shark attack, missile attack, terrorist attack, Death Star attack. While there are exceptions, e.g. heart attack, our title should be unambiguous.--agr (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I commend Arnold for his good sense. Srnec (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Clean-up

Lately, I've been active doing a bit of clean-up work on the article. Most of the work involved finding sources and placing citation tags, along with a bit of rewording and rearranging where I felt it was necessary. When a source could not be found, and the content seemed significant, I placed a "citation needed" tag. Overall, I tried to maintain and enhance the integrity of previous contributions; but in a few cases, I deleted relatively extraneous non-cited material for which I could not find a source.Ken (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

An English translation of purported recorded communications between the lead attack pilot (Captain Spector) and a person on Motor Torpedo Boat (MTB) T-206 is in the appendix of A.J. Cristol's book, The Liberty Incident. This translation is in effect a primary source. Presumably, the IDF and M. Oren relied on these recorded communications for statements in their respective History Report and articles about the attack.
Below is some of the translated recording. It involves an attempt to identify the ship (USS Liberty) immediately before attacking, and contains the following statements between Spector and a person on MTB T-206. (Note: I changed coded names in the recording transcript to actual names of person or entity involved.):
Spector's flight (two Mirages) arrives over the unidentified ship, at 1356 local time, and begins communicating with MTB T-206 via a UHF radio channel...
MTB T206: Spector, can you identify the target?
SPECTOR: Can you identify the target, MTB T-206?
SPECTOR: She's running from you in the direction of El Arish, excuse me, Port Said. What is it? What is it? A destroyer? A patrol boat? What is it?
MTB T-206: Spector, can you manage to identify it?
SPECTOR: I can't identify it, but in any case it's a military ship.
MTB T-206: Okay, what is it?
SPECTOR: It has one mast and one smokestack.
MTB T-206: Roger.
SPECTOR: It has one mast up front.
Immediately after this exchange, the Mirages begin attacking the unidentified ship...
Compare the above with current (25-JUNE-2013) content in the article:
"The IAF dispatched two Mirage III fighter jets, that arrived at the Liberty at about 2:00 pm[32] The formation leader, Captain Iftach Spector, made two reconnaissance passes at 3,000 feet.[32] He reported that the vessel appeared like a "Z" or Hunt class destroyer,[21] and that it was grey colored, had a foremast, one smokestack and two guns on its bow.[32] The off-center fed parabolic antenna on the ship's forecastle was mistaken for a gun.[citation needed] No flag or other identifying sign was seen.[32] Captain Spector reported all of this to the torpedo boats and ground control.[32]"
Cited source number 32 is the IDF History Report, and source number 21 is M. Oren's book, Six Days of War. The cited content truly appears in the secondary sources; but, clearly, it does not appear in the primary source. This constitutes unreliable and embellished reporting of primary source content, by both secondary sources. As such, I believe the above unreliable content should be changed to reflect the primary source's content.
I propose the following change, using Cristol's book as the source:
"The IAF dispatched two Mirage III fighter jets that arrived at Liberty at about 2:00 pm. The formation leader, Captain Iftach Spector, attempted to identify the ship. He questioned whether the ship was a destroyer, patrol boat or other type military ship, and reported that the ship had one smokestack and a foremast. Captain Spector reported all of this, via an UHF radio channel, to torpedo boat T-206."
There is other content, from these same secondary sources, in the article that appears equally unreliable. I'll address that later.Ken (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Cristol's book is not a very reliable source. Here's what he wrote on pages 37 and 38, of the hardback edition, with my comments in square brackets: "In the first UHF radio communication from Kursa flight received by MTB 206 and relayed to MTB 204, the lead MTB with Commander Moshe Oren aboard, the pilot (Spector) stated that the ship had a single funnel with a mast forward and a mast aft." [According to primary source transcripts, Spector did not report an aft mast.] "This information was passed from the bridge of the MTB where it was received to Yifrach in CIC with the comment that the target was a Zed-class destroyer; i.e., a former British Z class." [So, who made this comment? It wasn't Spector. There is no primary source cited for this last statement; i.e., no way to validate reliability.]
The "aft mast" statement is necessary because in a following statement, Cristol says: "In retrospect, accepting this report was another error because, although the Egyptian Z-class destroyers had a single funnel (or stack) and masts fore and aft..." Obviously, without the "aft mast" statement Cristol's error logic falls apart, and it renders him as an unreliable source for this specific matter.Ken (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The only source I've been able to find that appears to fairly reliably represent the primary source transcript's content is the Ram Ron report, i.e., the original IDF Inquiry Report. On page five it states: "...it appears from the recorded tape of the conversation of the pilots who attacked the ship (Exh. 'D')who were in radio contact with the Torpedo boats, that the ship was identified by the aeroplanes as a military ship with a single mast (gun?) and a single funnel. In the report of the pilots after the operation (Ex. 'H') it is expressly stated that, 'The size of the target appeared to them to be a destroyer or something smaller and that they received confirmation to attack the ships (sic) from the Torpedo boats and the Air Control'. It appears from Exhibit "L" that the confirmation by the Torpedo boats to the attack by the aeroplanes was given after the pilots had been asked once more to identify the target and had been told that the target was escaping, probably in the direction of Port Said, and that it was a military ship, without the pilots having been able to spot an identification marks or flag. At any rate, it is not certain whether this conversation took place before or during the actual attack."
As you can read, the Ram Ron report varies a bit from the communications transcript in that no initial approval to attack was issued by the torpedo boats; although, the report says that approval timing wasn't clear. It appears that the Ram Ron report uses both recorded communication and statements from the pilot, but in this case it uses pilot statements regardless of conflict with recorded communication content -- assuming the English transcript fairly represents actual communications. Regardless, the Ram Ron report appears to be a fairly reliable source.Ken (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Combining the apparently reliable components of the IDF History Report and Ram Ron report as sources, here what I propose:
"The IAF dispatched two Mirage III fighter jets that arrived at Liberty at about 2:00 pm. The formation leader, Captain Iftach Spector, attempted to identify the ship. He communicated, via radio, to one of the torpedo boats, that the ship appeared like a military ship with one smokestack and one mast. Also, he communicated, in effect, that the ship appeared to him like a destroyer or some other type small ship. In a post-attack statement, he said that he saw no distinguishable markings or flag on the ship."
Ken (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Move part of the introduction

The part about Israeli donations to the families of the killed and wounded ones can be moved to the aftermath. I see no reaon to have it on the part of the article that is supposed to quickly summarize the whole incident. What do you people think? Keep or move? I would like to know why it is relevant to keep it there. Ps. Sorry for my english.

--90.149.188.205 (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed...Ken (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

How many crew in total? I see there is 171 wounded and 34 dead. Were the entire surviving crew affected / wounded? 46.15.34.251 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There were 294 people on board when attacked.Ken (talk)

There is no citation for the following important sentence.

"The United States did not provide Israel any information about Liberty's mission or location."

Suggest removing if no citation can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.77.71 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on USS Liberty incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Liberty incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

Dear fellow Wikipedia editor!

When I add the image of the Memorial plaque of the Liberty Incident casualties Displayed in the Israeli Naval Museum, I apparently missed the third line of the paragraph above the names of the fallen soldiers. Therefore, I would like to correct my mistake.

The change is minor: instead of ending the paragraph with the words "on a ship", it will now end, as it should, with the words "on the ship "USS Liberty" 8 June 1967". You can see those words in the image yourself, because it`s written in English (and numeric digits).

Note: If you find the word "ship" Unnecessary because it is already included in the "USS" initials, you are free to remove it. The suggested translation is according to the way it appears in Hebrew.


Thank you for your time,
Donatel 09:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Following is the proposed change:


A Memorial plaque of the Liberty Incident casualties Displayed in the Israeli Naval Museum by veterans of MTB Squadron. The plaque says (translation):
"We express deep sorrow for the 34 friends who died from our hands, in combat they should not have been involved, on the ship "USS Liberty" 8 June 1967"
- The names of the fallen in the incident -
"May their memory be blessed. The veterans of MTB Squadron."

Donatel 09:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 14:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Under the heading "Aftermath of the attack", at the end of the 3rd paragraph, the description of Phil G. Goulding ends with the phrase "at a time". This should be "at the time".

The footnote (currently [50]) following the same paragraph, "Public Affairs in the USS LIBERTY Incident", includes a dead link (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/USS_Liberty_Pueblo_Stark/607.pdf). It's redirected to http://www.dtic.mil/cdn/404w.html; perhaps a search there can find the missing pdf. Login54321 (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the typo. I am having trouble getting a working PDF from the Internet Archive, so the dead link still needs fixing. VQuakr (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Translation of the Israeli memorial plaque

Hi,

The translation is basically OK, but it's a bit off on two points, and as someone who has lived here for over 25 years and edits Hebrew texts and translates in both directions, I feel qualified to suggest an improvement. The current translation begins:

"We express deep sorrow for the 34 friends who died from our hands, in combat they should not have been involved..."

"Died from our hands" is rather clumsy and not even a verbatim translation, which would be "who found their deaths at our hands". I would suggest either "who died at our hands" or the literal "who found their deaths at our hands".

The second suggestion is more substantive in that the Hebrew phrase is a poetic one that literally means "in a battle [or "in combat"] that wasn't theirs", but is probably closer in intent to "in a battle not of their choosing". I would suggest the latter. The current translation, but also the literal one I provided, is ambiguous and could mean that it was their fault for being involved in the battle between Israel and Egypt, which is clearly not the intent of the Hebrew. The phrase "אשר לא להם" is always used to mean that someone was completely a victim, and not somehow indirectly culpable. RBK613 (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Other available information.

The aim was to sink a US spy ship with all hands , blame Egypt and use it as an excuse to give military aid to Israel. With connivance of US government. Israel said it was a mistake; "thought" ship was mounting Egyptian commando raid. But Israeli planes and boats were unmarked.

US admiral ordered to withdraw jets he scrambled in support. Attack monitored by a US spy plane which had to take evasive action when attacked so the US Air Force knew, meaning navy could not hush it up.

Captain of Liberty believed it. Wrote a book in spite of being awarded Medal of Honour. Lifeboats and radio targeted by Jews but crew managed to get an aerial jerry rigged and radio for help. First offer of help came from a Russian destroyer, embarrassing so they picked up the signal.

First Israel pilot to get there correctly identified the ship, refused to attack, returned to base and was arrested for not following orders. He contacted Liberty captain years later.

All of that requires citations to independent reliable secondary sources before it can be put in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

History of the U.S. Navy: Volume Two

This entire article is strangely absent Robert W. Love, Jr.'s research which led to the publication, "History of the U.S. Navy, Volume Two, 1942-1991." It's briefly mentioned, but this long time Naval Academy historian does verify that the USS Liberty was not an accident, it was a premeditated Zionist conspiracy. The information reached Admiral McCain's office, but failed to reach the USS Liberty. We had a CIA agent in Tel Aviv to confirm the premeditated plan to be enacted by the IDF. This all appears on page 650 of the aforementioned book by the instructor at the US Naval Academy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakewayd (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

R.W. Love Jr does not verify; he reports what he read in James Ennes book, "Assault on the Liberty" -- that he listed as his source in the Notes section of his book.Ken (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's very significant that such a major publication coming out of a long time Naval Academy historian gave major credence to a Liberty survivor's account, that being a Zionist-Imperialist conspiracy. The specificity of "Zionist-Imperalist" conspiracy by this historian lends itself to a plausible idea of off the record conversations the Navy had among its ranks. Love goes on to describe how the Johnson administration's Jewish benefactors made sure no embarrassment would occur for Israel. This would be a very high level political assessment for one U.S.S. Liberty officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakewayd (talk • contribs) 01:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by a new editor

This page should note that there is a recording of the Israeli pilots calling the ship "American"

And interviews in which the crew members cite having a flag flying that could be seen for several miles.

Kindly add the following bibliographic entry Philip F. Nelson, LBJ: From Mastermind to "The Colossus:" The Lies, Treachery and Treason Continue (Skyhorse Publishing, 2014, Chapters 8 & 9: on the U.S. Attack on the Liberty, pp. 375 -446. By Rbleier (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Rbleier


Seems like there's nobody here looking to question the word of the culprits Brandamage (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Brandamage: Do you want it to say something like "The helicopter pilots noticed an American flag flying from the ship almost immediately upon their arrival at the attack site"? Can you point us to the sources? Doug Weller talk 13:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
What helicopter pilots? It was the jet pilots who identified the ship as American but were ordered to attack anyway. The State Archives has recently released a partially-declassified CIA document which details that. Haaretz has made a news article on that document today on July 11, 2017: 'But Sir, It’s an American Ship' 'Never Mind, Hit Her!' When Israel Attacked USS Liberty --Pudeo (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The CIA document contains no statement about jet pilots seeing an American flag. The CIA document states that an informant said that Dayan ordered the attack.Ken (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I have heard the abovementioned purported recording of the pilots and their base. At one point, the pilot puportedly had to press his question, and after delaying, the ground-control CONFIRMED it was an american ship; this was purportedly prior to the aircraft opening fire on the ship.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Liberty incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources That Say the Attack Was a Mistake vs. Deliberate

Jb12345678910111213 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)In an archive of the Talk page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:USS_Liberty_incident/Archive_1) there is a nice list of historians/sources that say the attack was deliberate vs. those saying it was a mistake. This should be in the article; it gives the reader a good perspective of the two sides of the issue. (disclosure: I was the editor that added Christopher Andrew to the list).

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2018

Change the sentence "Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity," to "Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to American communications faliure[1] which caused Israeli confusion about the ship's identity," 217.214.150.236 (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that CAMERA qualifies as a reliable source. Anyway, primary sources (i.e., the investigative reports) do not say that "American communications failure" was the cause for Israeli confusion about the ship's identity. Primary sources say that communication failures, on both sides, were a contributory factor. The Israeli reports say that the IDF Motor Torpedo Boat crews misidentified the ship (USS Liberty), upon visual inspection, as being Egyptian navy ship El Quseir. In addition, Israeli reports say that the IDF fighter jet pilots were not able to establish the ship's identity -- other than it appeared like some type of naval ship. When primary sources do not support a secondary source's statement(s), the reliability of the secondary source becomes questionable.Ken (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Took some time today to thoroughly read the CAMERA article cited as source. Nowhere in the article does it say or imply that: American communications failure was the cause for Israeli confusion about the ship's identity. Bottomline: this change request is bogus.Ken (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.sixdaywar.org/uss-liberty.asp

Minor edit request: punctuation

Under the section "NSA tapes and subsequent developments", 3 paras from the bottom, it says "Two diplomatic cables written by Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador in Washington, to Abba Eban Israel's minister of foreign affairs, ...". There should be a comma after Eban. Login54321 (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Memorial translation II

Jb12345678910111213 (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Why has not fixed the translation as per RBK613 comments? The current translation on the page is so obviously wrong. Specifically, change from "We express deep sorrow for the 34 friends who died from our hands, in combat they should not have been involved, on the ship "USS Liberty" 8 June 1967" to "We express deep sorrow for the 34 friends who died from our hands, in a battle not of their choosing, on the ship "USS Liberty" 8 June 1967" " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb12345678910111213 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You can't just assert a translation is incorrect, we need a reliable source with a "correct" translation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Jb12345678910111213 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Google translate (https://translate.google.com/#auto/en/%D7%91%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%91%20%D7%9C%D7%90%20%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%9D) translates "בקרב לא להם

" as: "In a battle not theirs", so I amend my request to change:

"We express deep sorrow for the 34 friends who died from our hands, in combat they should not have been involved, on the ship "USS Liberty" 8 June 1967"

to

"We express deep sorrow for the 34 friends who died from our hands, in a battle not theirs, on the ship "USS Liberty" 8 June 1967" ".

Also, @Eggishorn, your objection is more than a little not fair, the original translation itself is unsourced, so it seems specious to demand reliable sources to correct something that was not reliably sourced in the first place!

@Jb12345678910111213:, "Fairness" is less important than the Core Content Policies and Google Translate is not a Reliable source for stating what a translation is. While Google is a useful site and we use it frequently, their translation algorithms are opaque and not verifiable. The original translation was contributed here by an apparent Hebrew-speaking editor but you do have a point in that this was Original research. I have removed it completely for the time being until a sourced translation can be produced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Jb12345678910111213 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC):Ok, now I am confused, according to this Original research, "Faithfully translating sourced material into English" is not original research. Other than having an actual sourced translation of this particular text, what is the mechanism for deciding who is correct in a translation dispute? I think removing it, like you did, makes sense as well.
@Jb12345678910111213:, faithfully translating material into English based on a photograph one took oneself is original research and also something that few, if any, other editors will be able to verify. That's why I removed it. The mechanism for deciding is this very talk page. What is correctly included or not is decided through the processes of the normal editing cycle, consensus-building, and dispute resolution. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Well guys, I am the one who contributed the original translation and I'll be happy to address all of your concerns. But first let me say one thing: The memorial plaque language level is high in order to show respect to the fallen soldiers. Therefore any concern you have regarding the translation cannot be based on any machine translation, because machines cannot handle that kind of complexity.
As for the specific debate we have here: It was suggested that the words "לא להם" means "not theirs". That is an honest mistake to be made by a machine because only one letter can give those words this meaning. that is to say that if it said "לא שלהם" then the correct translation was "not theirs". But the Hebrew language has its beauty, and so if you take the letter "ש" from the word it gets an entirely different meaning and a more deeper one: not anymore it says "not theirs" as if it doesn't belong to them but as if they are the ones that do not belong here (= "in this battle" in our case). The veterans of MTB Squadron wanted to express by these words that instead of fighting with the enemy, as they taught they were doing, they end up mistakenly fighting the US navy seamen that weren't even part of the war.
In short, the original translation I submitted is correct and therefore I ask you to restore the image with the original translation. --Donatel 06:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Your original translation is totally wrong, even if we accept your basic point (which I see no evidence for). The phrase (in English) "in combat they should not have been involved" implies a strong sense of blaming the victims (i.e. they should not have been there), which the memorial is clearly not trying to do. I am not the first to assert that your translation is wrong; RBK613 also seemed to think so for a similar reason (here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:USS_Liberty_incident/Archive_8). I personally think "in a battle not of their choosing" is the best translation. The point is, the sentiment that you say is intended in the memorial is not what you think the English means.Jb12345678910111213 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
hello Jb12345678910111213. I read your comment carefully, and I appreciate the time you dedicated to review the quality of my translation. so... let me say this: even if it might not be comfortable to you, we can't "read in" what we feel into the text the veterans choose for the memorial plaque. I don't know the level of your Hebrew but the original text although somewhat ambiguous is most likely meant to imply "they should not have been there" - as you Phrased it. Don't forget we are talking about soldiers that most likely feel some amount of guilt for what happened, and most likely face some criticism from the people around them about their failure to identify the ship correctly. under those circumstances, it's only reasonable of them to express sorrow but alongside it to deflect some of the guilt.
The bottom line is that because of your criticism this piece of information is not displayed in the article, and it's a shame. I'm always open to hearing what translation one of you will suggest, and if that helps to restore the image - I'm in. But I have to ask you one thing: Don't bring up again the "in a battle not of their choosing" option. That just embarrassing, and it has no basis in the text.
Let us work together and place the image back in the article!
--Donatel 14:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Donatel My hebrew is very good (although I am not fluent). I don't see any evidence for your assessment that removing a "ש" completely changes the meaning of the word as you suggest (other than making the phrase more archaic), and I don't think "in a battle not of their choosing" is any less supported by "a battle they should not have been in". It's not question of what makes me uncomfortable, and I am not trying to read anything into the text; it's that I think you are wrong in your assessment that the text is implying "they should not have been there". Finally, I also think (like Eggishorn said above) that either my translation or yours really is original research, so is not really justified without a source. Given all of this, I think the best translation would be the most literal "in a battle not their's". Would you agree to that?Jb12345678910111213 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
If "in a battle not their's" bring the image back in the article - I'm in. --Donatel 06:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, יניב הורון and Eggishorn seem to be in an edit war over it, and since it is protected there's not much we can do.156.145.29.234 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון decided to simply revert back to the old translation without discussing any of my or the previous objections. What gives?156.145.29.234 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The requested edit appears to be done already. Please be specific when you are asking for EDIT REQUEST. thank you.--DBigXray 16:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I was specific. Did you read the edit request? I argued that the translation should be modified to ""We express deep sorrow for the 34 friends who died from our hands, in a battle not theirs, on the ship "USS Liberty" 8 June 1967" " from "We express deep sorrow for the 34 friends who died from our hands, in combat they should not have been involved, on the ship "USS Liberty" 8 June 1967".Jb12345678910111213 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
In English those sentences imply two different things. By saying in a battle not theirs the former statement does not assign agency to the Americans, and by doing so, is more ephemeral — almost to the point of becoming a non-sequitur — since the battle cannot logically not be theirs. Whenever one acts to fire upon an uninvolved party, they are unofficially making it the uninvolved party's battle.
By saying should not have been there the latter statement describes the Americans as discovering agency, yet still choosing to do nothing as they should have: they either accepted being there the entire time and did not withdraw when they should have -- or they accepted being there only later in the engagement, at which time they couldn't or wouldn't withdraw when they should have.  spintendo  08:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
You miss the point. My proposed translation is an accurate translation; it is not my job (or yours)to assess whether the translation is a nonsequiter or not without independent sources. The current translation is not an accurate literal translation of the original hebrew precisely because of the implication made. The obvious implication of the current translation is that the Americans should not have been there in the first place. This is simply inserting an idea that is not in the original hebrew. Unless a source is provided that the hebrew really implies this, its original research and should be changed.Jb12345678910111213 (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 Not done There's no consensus to carry out the edit requested in the above template. Fish+Karate 09:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
You did not even reply to my arguments. This is obviously original research and not an accurate translation. If there is truly no consensus, then the memorial translation should be removed as Eggishorn originally did. יניב הורון reverted to the original translation without even replying (and in fact, cited Google Translate, which actually supports my translation). If there is no consensus, the entire memorial sections should be removed.Jb12345678910111213 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
A Memorial plaque of the Liberty Incident casualties Displayed in the Israeli Naval Museum by veterans of MTB Squadron. The plaque says (translation):
"We express deep sorrow for the 34 friends who died from our hands, in combat they should not have been involved, on the ship "USS Liberty" 8 June 1967"
The names of the fallen in the incident -
"May their memory be blessed. The veterans of MTB Squadron."

The plaque in question. My hebrew is very limited, and cursive, worse. However, the fact that cursive Hebrew was used here is quite significant, as it has connotations of a handwritten letter, rather than a standard meemorial plaque. But most of the translation is not in question. The disputed phrase, "לא להם", if you read it at a very basic level (so my comprehension of it), is "not for them", or "not to them", of which only the former makes sense. Hebrew is generally a concise language, and there isn't always a direct translation, since literal translations seldom work. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Note: I am procedurally closing this edit request due to a lack of consensus to make a change to the article. Per WP:EDITREQ, the only changes that can be implemented through an edit request are uncontroversial improvements or edits that are already supported by a clear consensus of editors on the talk page. While there may be changes that need to be made to this article, an edit request is not the correct method of making those changes in this case. Please continue the discussion on the talk page, and if need be seek out dispute resolution. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"See also" section

On 15 Sep 2018, I added a "see also" section to USS ''Liberty'' incident with links to two other Wikipedia articles: Lavon Affair and John Gunther Dean. This edit was reverted less than two hours later by Noon with the edit note "rv unrelated". On 16 Sep 2018, I reverted the edit by Noon with my own edit note asserting: "the links provided are relevant in that they are all actual or alleged attacks by Israeli operatives against US government targets outside Israeli territory". Nevertheless, less than two hours later יניב הורון reverted my edit claiming "original research, you need a source showing a trend between these events".

I've read a lot of Wikipedia articles and I can't ever recall seeing a source listed for a "See also" section (nor for that matter categories or external links sections). Nor am I aware of any policy that requires such a source. It seems to me that WP:NOR applies to text in the main body of an article and not to "See also" sections. According to MOS:SEEALSO, "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I would argue that the two links in question are more than tangentially related to the USS Liberty incident as they are both examples of actual or alleged attacks by Israeli operatives against US government targets outside Israeli territory and they would help readers explore this topic. Finally, nothing I've seen in MOS:SEEALSO indicates that a source is required to support the inclusion of links in a "See also" section. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

These events are not necessarily related. USS Liberty was an accident of mistaken identity according to most sources (including both the US and Israeli governments), Lavon Affair was a false flag operation (which included British and Western targets), while John Dean was an American diplomat who accused Israel of trying to kill him (not proven). You need a reliable source showing a trend between these isolated events whose purpose was "to attack the US" or whatever, NOT your own imagination or opinion. I've seen the three articles and there's no source claiming these incidents are linked to each other, not in space, not in time, not in purpose, etc.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
What WP:RS connect those events? --Shrike (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the connection to Lavon. Dean seems sketchy as well.Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Translation of the plaque (again, sorry)

My language skills are not adequate for me to comment on the meaning of the Hebrew, but they are definitely adequate for me to comment on the quality of the English. There are at the moment two English errors:

  • "died from our hands" is not correct (note that in Google this phrase gets only 6 hits of which 3 are this page). The correct expression is "died at our hands".
  • "in combat they should not have been involved" does not grammatically fit with the previous part. It could possibly appear like that in a poem, but not in ordinary prose. I suggest it shouldn't be used except in translation of a form only used in Hebrew poetry. An example of similar correct English is "in combat they should not have been involved in". Zerotalk 16:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Zero0000: - some of it is somewhat poetic / phrasing which doesn't translate well. This is a literal translation (1 to 1, same order) - "We express deep sorrow on 34 friends who found their death from our hands, in a battle not theirs, on the ship USS Liberty .... May their memory be blessed! Veterans of MTB Squadron.". Agree with "at our hands" (the Hebrew is from, but it is not correct English). As for battle not theirs (בקרב לא להם ) - I would (if I were doing a non-literal translation) probably "freestyle it" to some other phrase in English - in Hebrew this is a nice/clever phrase, but its a bit clunky in English.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Documentary available online

This documentary (titled "The day Israel attacked America") shows explicitly that they knew it was (@38:10) "an American ship" BEFORE the attack...What gives? Yet not a word about this in the WP article's lead!... Who writes and monitors this article (Where are the good editors??) All gone??? (we hope NOT!) 66.87.9.59 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the documentary a reliable source? I think not. I'm familiar with the documentary and primary sources. The documentary does not truly represent context and words contained in the primary source (an English translation of a Hebrew audio recording). Specifically, the air-controller statement about the ship possibly being American were spoken after the air attack. In the documentary, it's made to appear that this statement was made before the air attack. Of course, one can argue that the primary source is a fraud; but none-the-less, it is the primary source and the documentary misrepresents it. Ergo, the documentary is not a reliable secondary source.Ken (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kjhalliwell: the two IP addresses that added the above are part of 3 IP ranges blocked for anti-semitic trolling. Explains a lot. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Last sentence of 2nd paragraph

It currently says "though others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate."
It should say "though others, including some survivors of the event, rejected these conclusions and maintained that the attack was deliberate."
158.123.57.249 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Why "event" instead of "attack?"Ken (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
You know why. 2A02:8108:1BF:CC2C:C0C:9863:CD17:C4B8 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Post-incident commentary

Can somebody able to edit fix:


Cristol wrote about Boston's professional qualifications and integrity, on page 149 of his book:

Boston brought two special assets in addition to his skill as a Navy lawyer. He had been a naval aviator in World War II and therefore had insight beyond that of one qualified only in the law. Also, Kidd knew him as a man of integrity. On an earlier matter Boston had been willing to bump heads with Kidd when Boston felt it was more important to do the right thing than to curry favor with the senior who would write his fitness report.

— A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident


into:


Cristol wrote about Boston's professional qualifications and integrity, on page 149 of his book The Liberty Incident:

Boston brought two special assets in addition to his skill as a Navy lawyer. He had been a naval aviator in World War II and therefore had insight beyond that of one qualified only in the law. Also, Kidd knew him as a man of integrity. On an earlier matter Boston had been willing to bump heads with Kidd when Boston felt it was more important to do the right thing than to curry favor with the senior who would write his fitness report.


There may also reason to delete the portion about which page of the book this quote was found on. Ted (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

misspelling in article

This line under the heading:

Israeli government investigations According to an Isreal Foreign Ministry letter to the Israeli Embassy in Washington:

Should read "According to an Israel Foreign Ministry letter... ?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRFunky (talk • contribs) 00:26, May 27, 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Arabs listening in on U.S. communications

Interesting quote buried in the Chicago Tribune article. Possible motive for the attack?

Many ears were tuned to the battles being fought in and around the Sinai during the Six-Day War, including those belonging to other Arab nations with a keen interest in the outcome. "I had a Libyan naval captain who was listening in that day," said a retired CIA officer, who spoke on condition that he not be named discussing a clandestine informant. "He thought history would change its course," the CIA officer recalled. "Israel attacking the U.S. He was certain, listening in to the Israeli and American comms [communications], that it was deliberate."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html
Why was a CIA officer letting a Libyan naval captain listen in?
IHTFP (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

" "We asked for [the attack investigation report about two weeks ago and have not received it yet from Secretary Rusk"

delete the bracket here or fix it because it's open and never closes. Fefil14 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for finding this error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
== Link needs correcting ==

In the "Air and Sea Attacks" section, second paragraph, the link for the Dassault Mysteres should be for [Dassault Mystère IV]:

"and were replaced by a flight of two Dassault Mysteres codenamed Royal flight." Bron6669 (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I looked at the IDF report that is the source for the statement, and it says that the planes were two Dassault Super Mystère aircraft, so I updated the link accordingly. Do you have a source for your claim that they were the IV version? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I did read that it was IVs somewhere, but it seems like the IDF report would be the most knowledgeable source. Thank you. Bron6669 (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Grammar mistake

1) First, I think it's silly that I can't edit this to fix an obvious error. 2) "Ennes and Joe Meadors, also survivors of the attack," should be "Ennes and Joe Meadors, also a survivor of the attack" Seven Pandas (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Article is waaay too long

I’d suggest a serious attempt be made at cutting it down in size to maybe 1/10th if the current length.

And perhaps make a separate article titled: “Conspiracy theories about the USS Liberty incident “.

Mistaken identification and friendly fire incidents happen in the fog of war. (Like several US inquiries have established that this was.) It’s nothing new and doesn’t warrant a 10.000 word article.

192.38.137.188 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is very long, arguably too long, but removing parts of it into a separate article is a terrible idea. Zerotalk 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing anything in this article based on biased opinion of motive, particularly when that bias goes against the victim's beliefs, would be completely dishonorable to the 34 people who lost their lives, and the motivation of such removal would need to be seriously questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D101:A620:5BA:A0AD:C139:AF70 (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, this article has some concerningly slanted language suggesting that parts of it were written by someone quite biased. AngryZinogre (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Please ADD the following update:

On August 2020 TruNews.com released a documentary, Sacrificing Liberty, where the last remaining survivors of the USS Liberty were interviewed. The testimonies were recorded in 2019. P. Starton (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. What's the link to the documentary? Have there been reliable sources published about the documentary? Seagull123 Φ 09:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

USS Liberty Incident

It is worthy to note that this incident has been covered up and misrepresented since it occurred by the US government. The issue when right to the white house. Help was on the way from our fleet and ordered to retreat by LBJ. A 4 part documentary, called "Sacrificing Liberty" needs to be watched if you really want to know what happened. The men that actually were there and survived are now speaking. Most of what is posted on Wikipedia is false. Sedonamike (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

Hi. This section is in the middle of the article: "After coming under fire, the torpedo boats returned fire with their cannons, killing Liberty's helmsman.[45] The torpedo boats then launched five torpedoes at the Liberty.[46] At 1235Z (2:35 local time)[45] a torpedo hit Liberty on the starboard side forward of the superstructure, creating a 40 ft (12 m) wide hole in what had been a cargo hold converted to the ship's research spaces and killing 25 servicemen, almost all of them from the intelligence section, and wounding dozens.[45] It has been said the torpedo hit a major hull frame that absorbed much of the energy; crew members reported that if the torpedo had missed the frame the Liberty would have split in two. The other four torpedoes missed the ship.[citation needed]"

I have found a reputable citation (https://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html) to fulfill the citation needed part, but a lot of the information in here is wrong. The torpedo boats weren't under fire, it's a 39-foot hole, the time is wrong, and it was five torpedoes out of six that missed the ship. I would suggest this to be the final paragraph:

"After erroneous reports of shelling, the torpedo boats began strafing the Liberty, launching six torpedoes. While five of them missed, at 1228Z(2:28pm local time), a torpedo struck the Liberty's right side, leaving a 39 ft (12 m) hole. The impact killed 25 servicemen, almost all of them from the intelligence section, and wounded dozens.[45] [1]" AvatarQX (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

40ft is just a rounded estimate. I don't think anybody actually took a measure so precisely in the heat of battle... No comment on the rest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
That's fine if people want to leave it as 40ft. The final edit can then be: "After erroneous reports of shelling, the torpedo boats began strafing the Liberty, launching six torpedoes. While five of them missed, at 1228Z (2:28pm local time), a torpedo struck the Liberty's right side, leaving a 40 ft (12 m) hole. The impact killed 25 servicemen, almost all of them from the intelligence section, and wounded dozens.[2][3]" AvatarQX (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The original reference says 39ft as well, so I've changed that. The torpedo boats under fire bit refers to the two paragraphs above it: they were very briefly under fire. The Israeli source says five torpedos with more detail, so I'm more inclined towards keeping that one in. The two sources already there and the Chicago Tribune one all disagree on the time, so I'm not changing it either because it's a minor detail. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Crewdson, John. "New revelations in attack on American spy ship". Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 10 March 2021.
  2. ^ Gerhard & Millington 1981, p. 29
  3. ^ Crewdson, John. "New revelations in attack on American spy ship". Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 10 March 2021.

Proposed merge of Ward Boston into USS Liberty incident

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See identically-named section below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have independent (stand-alone) notability... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

The article is not available in German, however, its content is. Therefore, link the article to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_(AGTR-5). TurbinePotsdam (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That article is linked from USS Liberty (AGTR-5), as one would expect. If you want to create a redirect on de.WP and then associate that redirect with this article, you can do so in Wikidata, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Impartial documentary stating the attacks were deliberate by Israel

Please see this: https://www.aljazeera.com/program/featured-documentaries/2014/10/30/the-day-israel-attacked-america/

It references NSA own recordings of the event and many NSA employees impartial testimonies.

Who (which group?) is suppressing this info on WP?

I am neutral (and a-political) but think this documentary should be referenced (not suppressed) .

172.58.236.142 (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Identification of Israeli MTBs

The MTBs involved are as follows:

T203 (INS PERESS), T204 (INS TAHMASS), and T206 (INS YASOOR)

File:E-G7Aa XoAE 6Ok.jpg

EDJT840 (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Ward Boston into USS Liberty incident

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Listed at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell until the merge takes place. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Can the tags be removed because they were added in May 2021, it's now mid September and there has been zero discussion about it? see here

There was a case made, now archived with no objections to the merge at Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 8#Proposed merge of Ward Boston into USS Liberty incident. The grounds there were no independent notability. I agree, and given WP:1E, hence support the merge. The Ward Boston article mostly relates to the USS Liberty incident, which is best discussed in one place. Klbrain (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
For the above reasons I also support the proposed merge. In addition, the Boston page is not all too well-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toadspike (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrect Authority control

There are three problems with the Authority control listed on this page:

  1. The information is local to the page and likely exists on its Wikidata sibling.
  2. The metadata refers to the vessel USS Liberty and not the incident.
  3. If there is a merger with the Ward Boston article, citing the ship's metadata would be beyond its scope.

I don't have the power to change it (my edit focus is on Wikidata), considering the status of this page. Someone, please delete the information contained within the Authority control tag. Cineria (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

ambiguous - $25.2 million in 2020 - Why were they given money again in 2020? State UNAMBIGUSOUSLY 97.127.163.234 (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

The change of the title from USS Liberty incident to USS liberty attack. 2409:4041:2D95:9B5A:0:0:9988:7B15 (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Reportedly

Wikipedia requires neutrality (NPOV) in its editing. "Reportedly due to misidentification" both gives the position officially adopted by the governments of both the United States and Israel, while leaving room for other interpretations. Not adding this information leaves the impression as if it's been confirmed that the attack was intentional, when that is not the case. Use of neutral language would require the language introduced above or something similar. What language should be included can and should be discussed to reach a consensus. Also, might I add that undoing a good faith edit with the language "just an israeli claim meant as excuse" when there's been no such official finding seems to undermine the principal of neutrality on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren.enlight (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Denniss Hi! Above is my explanation for why I added this to the introductory paragraph, as the expanded explanation only comes later, and isn't a part of the definition of the incident in the first paragraph, leaving the impression in that part that it is well established that the incident was intentional. If you think this gives one side more weight, let's think together about how to phrase the introductory paragraph in such a way that it doesn't do that, but doesn't erase the official version accepted by the United States and Israel, either. Darren.enlight (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead already includes that Israel says this, and that the official US and Israeli line is that it was misidentified. Stating it again in the first sentence is a bit too much. nableezy - 21:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"Reportedly" does not belong, it gives way too much weight to a conspiracy theory that the attack was deliberate. Further, let's not pretend this is a longstanding version we're talking about, the word was only added 3 months ago, and such a contentious assertion should have seen a wider discussion first. Zaathras (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Fix the language

Al Jazeera has literally released an audio recording of Israeli jet knowing it is american and the pilot deciding to go in anyways. Article shouldnt assert that it was a misidentification. Can someone try fix the language? If i read this i'd be lead to believe that it was an accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PreserveOurHistory (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Provide the source, please. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

misidentification -- WP:BRD

The term "misidentification" in the lede is proper. The NSA report has several comments about the problems with identification. It is not conspiracy or tin-hat problem. – S. Rich (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It is already covered in the lead. And rollback is for, and only for, reverting vandalism. nableezy - 00:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation

The USS Stark was attacked by Iraqi Exocet missiles in the Persian Gulf in 1987. The USS Liberty was not the last US Navy ship attacked preceding the USS Cole. 2603:9000:BA0E:6700:B104:DF0E:678C:466E (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The USS Cole doesnt seem mentioned anywhere on this page? nableezy - 20:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

General Yitzhak Rabin

Major General Rabin was the IDF's joint chief of staff in the Six Day War, not head of air force as the article currently states 213.137.73.7 (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The link to the Al Jazeera documentary "The Day Israel Attacked America" in reference 115 is currently broken. It is still available under https://www.aljazeera.com/program/featured-documentaries/2014/10/30/the-day-israel-attacked-america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:C8E0:8000:861B:77FF:FE28:D9BC (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Changed, though I opted to prioritize the archive URL instead of using a different one. Freelance-frank (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Insufficient citation

In the introductory text: " Others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate", has two sources, neither claim that *survivors* of the attack have this opinion. I think the content of the sentence should be changed to "Some claim that the attack was in-fact deliberate." 2A02:C7F:3A87:9A00:A22A:6AC8:E062:F12F (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the NSA citation from the previous sentence also says that the survivors believe this and I don't think it has been accurately summarized in the lede of the wiki article. It actually says the following (See https://web.archive.org/web/20121030155345/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/attack_sigint.pdf pages 61-64):
1. The Israeli Court of Inquiry prioritized exculpation of Israeli nationals in its investigation
2. The CIA report was prepared hastily just 5 days after the attack and concluded that the attack was a case of mistaken identity
3. The NSA report, based on the same signals intelligence as the CIA report but done more thoroughly and at a later date, considers the question of whether or not the Israeli forces knew the ship was American to be "an unanswered question"
4. The NSA report also concludes that "not a few" of the USS Liberty's crewmen are convinced that it was a deliberate attack, based on the "Israelis [having] the ship under surveillance prior to the attack, the visibility of the flag, and the intensity of the attack itself."
Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

the lede is misleading

It gives the impression that the evidence favors the view that this was an accident, and just a couple of folks say otherwise, but this is not at all the case, as the rest of the article indicates. And see https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/08/the-uss-liberty-a-well-planned-accident/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.126.89 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"Possibly it is likely" - request for edit

Does it make sense to say "Colonel Peyton E. Smith wrote of the possibility that 'The attack was most likely deliberate'". The use of the word "possibility" seems to be an attempt to soften what he said, but in the the reference he is simply making the assessment that it "was most likely deliberate". Remove "of the possibility". 118.210.200.222 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

He makes this assessment at the end of his opening paragraph and repeats it in the second sentence of his Conclusion (and he gives the impression of a thorough and unbiased analysis). 118.210.200.222 (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Done. Yes, that was some obvious editorializing. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Misidentified"

Does anyone genuinely believe this is the truth?

71.40.91.242 (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

To quote from WP:FLAT
The threshold for including material in Wikipedia is that it is verifiable, not merely that we think it is true. That is, readers must be able to check that the material has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.
Therefore, Wikipedia is not worried per se about whether the theory that the Earth is flat is true. There must be current, reliable and independent sources substantiating claims that the Earth is flat. But there are no such sources that are current (almost no scientists have thought the Earth was flat since about the fourth century BC), that are reliable (reliable sources are reviewed for accuracy), or independent (a journal published by a Flat Earth Society would not be independent.)
If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents.
In short, we don't decide if something's true or not. We just report what sources say. What we "think" doesn't matter, and since sources conflict, we list both. The official statement from some involved parties was that it was an accident, so, as an encyclopedia, we list those statements as per se their statements. It's beurocratic red tape for sure, but it gives us a rule-based "short-circuit" to discussions with people arguing BS so we don't have to waste our time. Basically, we aren't a publishing journal, we report what journals say, if that makes sense. Tertiary source. For the purpose of the project, it tends to work out for the better. Without that rule, the site would be completely dysfunctional. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, obviously not the families of the survivors. That's on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

BRD cycle please

@Parham wiki: Re: this - you are expected to follow the WP:BRD cycle, just like anyone else. The infobox has been stable for a long time, and you are attempting to change it suddenly while having made no attempt to justify the change here on the talk page. Your last edit referenced casualties, which seems irrelevant. A military engagement does not need to be balanced, and a one-sided massacre is a military engagement regardless if both sides are active military personnel on duty. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry
Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has infobox event and the United States was not a combatant in the Six-Day War. Parham wiki (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Parham wiki: The first point there is whataboutism, but indeed, no one even knows if it was an attack or an accident, so yeah, it's an 'event' at the moment. As to the second point, it is not relevant whether or not the US were combatants: the Israelis believed (or claimed to believe) they were attacking an Egyptian ship, in a military strike. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. Do you mean the hospital or this attack?
  2. But they were wrong (or maybe they lied).
Parham wiki (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@SuperSkaterDude45: Parham wiki (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Parham wiki: But they were wrong (or maybe they lied). Regardless of whether or not the Israeli Defense Forces were correct on their stance, they nonetheless acted with the context of a military engagement in an (at the time) ongoing conflict. Also, unorthodox combatants in infoboxes have been used before as the Lima campaign has foreign observers that never actually participated in the War of the Pacific. Another example of this can be observed with the Battle of Galați despite the Russian forces initially being allies. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Dovidroth: Please don't rapidly revert while there's an ongoing discussion at the talk page. To begin, A unilateral attack is not a military engagement between two sides, other articles such as the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bombardment of Papeete (A GA) and the Anglo-Zanzibar War (A FA) contain military conflcit infoboxes. I fail to see why this article should exclude one as well. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the Infobox military operation would be a better choice of template? VQuakr (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Confusing infobox

At the moment, the infobox doesn't indicate who the attacker was or who they attacked. The infobox currently in use has both "perpetrator" and "target" parameters; either the attacker and target should be specified, or a different infobox should be used, because the infobox currently doesn't clearly state who was involved. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Since the issues outlined were the result of a proposed and contested edit, I've made this a subsection of the discussion above. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

The Israel's knew who and what they were attacking. Saying it was an accident is untrue and insulting to the survivors and the dead. Just have to watch the interviews with the survivors to find the truth 2405:6E00:BB8:8600:91C3:397D:690A:2946 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: we don't present opinions as facts. Please read the parts more carefully, and tell what's wrong. NotAGenious (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

Suggest changing caption:

Damaged USS Liberty one day (9 June 1967) after attack

To

Damaged USS Liberty on 9 June 1967, one day after attack

(reads better and clearer)

2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:6C37:1404:EADF:4920 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

GTR-5

there is no article called GTR-5 or GTR, so I couldn't locate a definition readily to add a link. Would some sailor please explain GTR-5 for the general reader. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Humphrey Tribble: AGTR: Auxiliary, General, Technical Research. We link "Technical research ship" which is where AGTR redirects, but if there's a convenient place later on to spell it out I'm not opposed. I'm not a sailor. :) VQuakr (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to a definition VQuakr (talk · contribs). The problem was that the link "technical research ship" is in the sidebar where it might be missed by readers interested in skimming the narrative.
I tried splitting the template "Main" to display a separate link to "technical research ship" but that didn't work (at least with my level of experience. So I have linked GTR in the identification section, split the sentence, and added a few words of explanation.
I was hesitant to meddle so I won't be offended if my edit is reverted. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, I see no clear consensus for the proposed change at this time. BD2412 T 16:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident → Attack on the USS Liberty – It was an attack on the ship and referring to it as an “incident” is understating and misrepresenting the events whether or not you believe it was intentional or accidental. MountainDew20 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. NasssaNsertalk 12:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose - incident and attack are both commonly used in cited sources and no attempt was made in nom to show one formulation was more common than another, so I'm not seeing adequate reason to move. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose
a) various names other than attacks have been applied at least as far back as the Boston massacre. (That is one I would like to change.) It has also been described as an incident, a disturbance, and an affair. Within that article, other words such as "event" had also been used until settling on "incident".
b) there is undoubtedly a political dimension to naming. Consider occasions on which the United States was shooting. Wasn't the US "Bombing of Libya" an attack? The American attacks on Taiwan and Korea are called "expeditions". There have been US "interventions" in Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Yemen, Libya, Niger, and Syria. US involvements in China, Indonesia, and the Philippines are called rebellions.
I'm sure a variety of names have also been applied when other countries are involved. Lately "operation" has been the buzzword, leading to all-out war being called "a special operation".
So there is no reason to insist the Liberty incident be called an attack. Humpster (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Of the two phraseologies, neither appears to have dramatically greater prevalence; however, one does have dramatically greater precision and descriptive merit, and that is the language of attack. "Incident" is a generic term that can mean anything and is pretty descriptively moot: it just means it's a "something" – and when that something is an "attack", the use of "incident" additionally becomes borderline euphemistic. The event was described as an attack in the immediate aftermath, both in official US documents, such as the Clifford report, and even in Israeli documents, such as the IDF report. I meanwhile don't see any evidence that the "incident" variant is more prevalent in the common name sense in such a way that it would justify using this less descriptive option. A Google Scholar search for the present title immediately throws up titles using the proposed one instead. A few sources then seem to use the current title as a short of short form. The same search for the proposed title throws up entirely more consistent results, and shows a breadth of usage of the phrase both in a titular manner and descriptively within the sources. In an encyclopedic setting, given the choice between clarity and obfuscation, the former is preferable. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Humpster and VQuakr. it is important to note that, contrary to the claim of Iskander323 regarding the terminolgy used in Israeli documents - every Hebrew document I examined employs the Hebrew term תקרית‎, which translates to 'incident'. See for example the related wiki article in Hebrew and its referenced materials. And even the IDF report, mentioned by Iskandar323, does not designate it as an 'attack': the report's title employs the term פרשה‎‎ (incident, affair, case), and consistently throughout the text, תקרית‎‎ (incident) is used. [2]. GidiD (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, fair enough, I was going by English titles. However, this if anything strengthens the notion that "incident" is a euphemism aligned with and possibly even arising from the Israeli POV, which here obviously involves a massive exercise in blame shifting. This affirms that we may need to look elsewhere to come upon NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    No true Scotsman would call this an 'incident', eh? VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support As the most precise and accurate title. Attack is widely-used, including in US government sources, see Haaretz, History channel, CIA document from 1967, US Defense Department report from 2009, Naval Heritage and History Command, Washington Post and Brookings Institution. "Incident" seems euphemistic and misleading. AusLondonder (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - incident is euphemistic in the extreme, widely called an attack, and Hebrew language sources have nothing whatsoever to do with what we call our article. Also per Iskandar323. nableezy - 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per others' comments. The suggested title is much more clear about the topic. Whether intended as a disingenuous euphemism or not, the current title gives that impression and is bland and uninformative. We should not be trying to translate based on what the topic is called in Hebrew, as Wikipedia should WP:USEENGLISH sources, and there should be no shortage of sources written in English about an attack of this magnitude on a large U.S. military vessel. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per GidiD, the event is most commonly referred to in Hebrew sources as תקרית, meaning incident.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Eladkarmel: As explained immediately above, we WP:USEENGLISH, and you haven't explained why this guideline should be neglected. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose based GidiD etc. due to more common usage FortunateSons (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons: Would this be the part of Gidi's response irrelevantly referring to non-English sources, or the part simply referring to other peoples' responses (neither of which were incidentally regarding common usage)? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
It’s the reference to common parlance in one of two relevant languages in an Israeli-US interaction (Hebrew, which I don’t speak, but nobody seems to be disagree with the content, so…) and his reference to two other editors I would have cited, signified with an etc.. While we usenglish, a case of deciding usage between two similarly used names may merit other arguments, including names in other relevant languages.
That being said, per WP:EN: When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version., which would be a policy argument for the current title. FortunateSons (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
That quote is about divided usage between English language dialects, e.g. UK and US English (example: full stop vs. period), not between English and foreign language usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Or different names (Torino vs. Turin), which is the case here. In such cases, I would consider „what do other languages do“ to be significant, but I guess that’s up for debate FortunateSons (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The header of that section is: "Divided usage in English-language sources", so that is what it's pertinent to, and the case here is not variant transliterations of the same name; it is two entirely distinct descriptive words. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The articles first sentence is The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)., so I believe it also applies to different words for the same abstract concept (like it does here). Even if it doesn’t, the same idea can still be used analogously, something I would be in favour of even if the article would not apply here, which I strongly believe it does. FortunateSons (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
While "incident" is an abstract concept, hence the argument that it is WP:EUPHEMISM, "attack" is not an abstract concept: "attack" means an "attack" – it is not unclear, euphemistic or an abstract concept. So there no single abstract concept with two words applied to it here: there is one abstract concept being applied to an attack (as it is routinely described), and the descriptive word "attack" being applied to the same attack (as it is routinely described). The obvious discrepancy in descriptive value between these two words for the same event is the essence of the motive behind this move request. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
You are right on the higher degree of clarity, but it unfortunately does come with a high degree of connotation (specifically dolus directus) or even misdirection that is at best controversial here. Particularly with an issue as rife with conspiracy as this one is, I would prefer unclear of wrongly connotatated any day.
On that same note, I would also be opposed to titling a friendly fire incident as an attack even if technically accurate, saying “police officer attacks fire fighter“ is less that optimal when the actual incident can plausibly be “thinks fire fighter is a bank robber, shoots him before realising.“
If you can find a less misguiding name that is supported by RS and policy, I could be amendable to a change, but this really isn’t it. FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Hypothetical analogies are always problematic, because they enter the realm of OR. BUT, if a policeman shot/stabbed a firefighter, the headline the next day would very much be "policeman shoots/stands firefighter"; it wouldn't be "policeman-firefighter incident". They wouldn't use "attack" here because interpersonal attacks tend to be described by method; however, if you genuinely thought attack was similarly too vague on this page, the descriptive line to push for would be "bombing" or a similar descriptive alternative, not a euphemism in the opposite direction from description. Furthermore, in your assertion that "attack" is somehow misguided language, despite its use in most reliable sources, you seem to be applying a value judgement beyond what the sources convey. In any case, a misguided attack, if that's what it was, is still an attack, just as an accidental shooting or stabbing is still a shooting or stabbing. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Possibly better analogous titles would be "Firefighter incident", "Death of firefighter", or "State employee shot". There is no real need to mention police involvement, as that could improperly imply misconduct by a police officer. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
If you are interested in “damaging”, I think it is more accurate than bombing, but that isn’t really supported by RS and just a personal preference (bombs not guaranteed to be the only source of damage, attack being inaccurate or at least misleading and you disagreeing with incident), but I honestly think that incident is probably the most stable version there is, despite me being not particularly happy, because it is vague - kind of the least bad option. But I don’t think either of us is able to change the other persons mind in this particular case, so I think it’s best to agree to disagree.
Regarding vague titles/names, it is definitely a frustration I share, but also common in other cases, such as Midair Mishap
Incident is used in this way in many cases (some more similar than others) even when Israel, Israelis or Jews are potentially victims, such as [1][2][3][4]. FortunateSons (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support It is my belief that 'attack' would be a better word than 'incident' due to it being more descriptive than 'incident.' But I consider the matter a relatively small one. Radiourgía Promithéas (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per common sentiment in thread. The only use of incident seems to be from Hebrew sources, and may be appropriate in Hebrew, but attack is the most commonly used term in this regard in English. WP:USEENGLISH should be followed in this case. I also do not find FortunateSons argument convincing in this case, as the Boeing Mishap is called a mishap and not an incident for the purpose of descriptiveness.
Looking at Google Trends, we see a general favouring of "USS Liberty Attack" as opposed to "USS Liberty Incident" for a search term, with "Attack" being overwhelmingly dominant in contemporaneous sources.
A quick search of "USS Liberty books" also brings forth some results (I am not including all the sources that use "attack").
"Assault on the Liberty" Ennes, 1979
"Attack on the USS Liberty" Gerhard, 1981
"The Liberty Incident" Cristol, 2002
"Attack on the Liberty, Scott, 2009
Common parlance definitely favors attack, not incident. I don't see any reason to consider the Hebrew on an English article. WP:COMMONTERM applies in this case. Skerbs (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
As is clear from the incident details the shooting was accidental, due to mis-identification of the Liberty as Egyptian vessel. In no other context, unintentional shootouts (or friendly fire) are called 'attacks'. See for example the excellent book of Louis Hicks Normal Accidents in Military Operations [3] .
Also check out other article titles (or text within) of similar maritime accidents (accidentally shooting a friendly force):
  • Guang_Da_Xing_No._28_incident
  • TCG_Muavenet_(DM_357) # Sea Sparrow incident
  • USS_Harwood -   “The ship was bombed and sunk in error by Turkish Lockheed F-104 Starfighter and North American F-100 Super Sabre aircraft on 21 July 1974, mistaking it for a Greek vessel during Turkish landings on Cyprus. Fifty-four members of her crew were killed in the incident.
  • Konarak vessel incident
GidiD (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually, it is not so clear that the attack on the Liberty (which was more than a "shooting") was accidental. That is a disputed question. Books have been written on the subject. As the lead section of the article says, "Others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected [the explanation] and maintain that the attack was deliberate." Even if the decision to attack was in error, the idea of calling a combined air and sea attack involving multiple attacking fighter aircraft and torpedo boats a mere accident seems a bit strange. I do not find an article entitled USS Harwood incident (or 'attack') or TCG Muavenet (DM 357) incident (or 'attack'), so I don't see how those are directly relevant. The Konarak vessel incident was a case of a military attacking its own vessel, not someone else's. The Guang Da Xing No. 28 incident was a much smaller incident – one guy was shot by someone with a hand-held rifle. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism?

I was searching for the "Kill rebels, behead rebels" copypasta meme, and this was, for some unknown reason, the 3rd result. I suspect this page has been covertly vandalised so it would appear when you search that (the meme originated from a racist 4chan post). BonkeySmoke (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Egyptian Submarines

"It was later reported, based on information from IDF sources, that the over-flights were coincidental, and that the aircraft were hunting for Egyptian submarines that had been spotted near the coast." Did Egypt have submarines in 1967? I think this claim needs a citation. 2601:147:4700:7BD0:1747:553F:3078:956A (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2024

I believe the links to 'Thursday 8 June 1967', and 'June in the year 1967' are unnecessary additions to the 'See Also' section and should be removed to reduce cluttering and to be more in line with how the 'See Also' section is used in other pages. CheeseAuthority (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Agreed, unnecessarily generic to be included in see also -- macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Liberty_incident/Archive_8&oldid=1248593472"