Talk:USS Liberty incident

Survivors of The USS Liberty dispute Naval investigation

BBC has produced an alternative story to what really happened in regards to the Israei attack on The USS Liberty. "USS Liberty:Dead in the Water" 2002 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOH1XMAwZA Along with the BBC the vertrans of The USS Liberty has a website dedicated to the events that took place on that fateful day. http://www.gtr5.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoconnor16 (talk • contribs)

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. NasssaNser_talk 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. [3]. 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)

• Oppose per Humpster. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 23:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Avoid euphemisms, please. Plenty of sources call it an attack: "When Israel Attacked USS Liberty" (Haaretz); "New evidence for American cover-up of Israeli attack on U.S. warship" (BBC); "A half-century after one of history’s most controversial attacks on a U.S. Navy ship, the wounds from the Liberty incident remain unhealed." (Naval History Magazine); "The Attack on the USS Liberty: Lessons for U.S. National Security" (Brookings); "1967 Attack Still Haunts USS Liberty Survivors" (NPR); "Attack on USS Liberty (AGTR-5)—Additional Detail" (Naval History and Heritage Command). Call it what it really is, an attack, not a euphemism. --NSH001 (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Humpster and others. "Incident" is more neutral, and fits better Wikipedia's voice. According to majority of reliable sources, the incident was directed against a suspicious Egyptian ship, in the midst of a war, which Israel considered an existential war. Noon (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Neutrality means neutrality between sources, so if the sources are split, one term cannot be "more neutral" on that basis alone - unless you think you can prove that there is the decisive numerical superiority of one term over the other in English-language sources - in which case, evidence that case. Beyond that, an "incident" cannot "be directed at" something in any English I know; "incidents" occur or take place; they are not directed at things. The word you would be looking for there would be something like "attack", a.k.a. the Egyptian ship was attacked. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - titles are supposed to be descriptive and neutral. –BanyanClimber(talk) 23:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)sock of banned user
• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA and its consistency clause. Most articles of this nature use the word 'incident' and that is common parlance on external sites, for example here. The ones known as 'affairs' I wouldn't support changing either as they are very much WP:COMMONNAMEs. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:52, 22 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 [4] .

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)

• Support calling a spade a spade Activist (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. "Attack" is objective and informative, "incident" is euphemistic and meaningless. Zero^talk 04:30, 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.