Talk:USS Liberty

(2007 comment)

Why is there no mention of the fact this was a deliberate attack by Israel and they knew it was a US ship? This is a crucial piece of infomation --82.32.1.175 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Because that isn't a "fact". At any rate, in the article for the attack itself, that theory is explored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.181.145 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is a fact. Aircraft flying over the ship saw the ship type and colors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.130 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the rule is regarding external links but some of those probably belong on the U.S.S. Liberty Incident article. Especially that link to Alex Jones' Google Video, which is about 9/11 conspiracism... 76.103.124.31 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed away a few external links that were not related to the ship itself but focused on the incident instead. --Brad (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Torpedo blast hole dimensions wrong...

The topedo blast hole was NOT 50', it was less than 40' wide and about 24' high. As I recall, the Navy's Court of Inquiry listed the hole as being 39' wide. My own measurements, based on photographs of the hole, determined it was about 33' wide, but wiki does not allow "original" research. So, the Court of Inquiry's stated measurement must rule, and it's not 50'.

An HTML copy of the Court of Inqiry record is here: http://www.ussliberty.org/nci.htm Ken (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the Court of Inquiry finding says: "[Torpedo] Hole centered at FR 60 and extending 24 ft downward from just below second deck and longitudinally from frame 53 to frame 66 (39 feet). The hole was teardrop in shape, larger at bottom." Ken (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Date of USS Liberty's return?

At the time of this writing, the article states: "...Liberty returned to the United States on July 27, 1967." Yet, photos of USS Liberty's return -- like the one shown in the article -- state July 29, 1967. So, which date is correct? To put it another way, what's the source for the July 27, 1967 date?Ken (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Article's limited intent

At the head of the article it's stated: "This article deals with only the undisputed facts regarding USS Liberty. It does not attempt to describe the events of 8 June 1967, where it was attacked by the Israel Defense Forces. See the USS Liberty incident."

Accordingly, I removed stuff from the article that attempted to describe the events of 8 June 1967. Ken (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

The NSA state in their report on the communication failures that led up to the incident (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_spectrum/Remember_the_Liberty.pdf) that 75 crewmembers were wounded, not 173. Which number can be believed? Are there any references for 173? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.105.247 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect dates

Article states ship was built in 1945 but also states it was involved in convoys in 1944 to the Philippines. Not sure which is correct. Anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampusaust (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely built in 1945, so cannot have been involved in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. No doubt probably did ship ammunition there in the dying days. Performed many supply runs during the Korean Conflict which isn’t mentioned.

Enderwigginau (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Other Description of Photo

In Remember the Liberty! by Phillip F. Nelson (2017, TrineDay, Walterville, Ore.), the photo of the ship shown in this article at this time appears on Page 51 captioned "The USS Liberty before the Attack." The US Navy official photo to which the photo in this article links describes it as having been taken after the attack.172.7.129.89 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I, too, think the date of the photo in the Infobox is wrong. The date is after the Israeli attack. The repairs in Malta were "temporary" and only so that the Liberty could make it back to the U.S. under it's own power. It would not have included a brand new paint job --- which the current photo appears to show.

Also, there's been the controversy as to whether or not the Liberty was flying an American flag during the attack. Oddly, I do not see any flag flying in this photo. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the repairs in Malta would probably have included paint, the US government was seeking to downplay the incident by the time the ship returned home and purely functional repairs would not have served that purpose as well. Compared to the other repairs undertaken a paint job on damaged exterior surfaces would have been quick and easy. James Scott, author of The Attack on the Liberty (2009), quotes a local newspaper account of the ship's return to Norfolk from Malta that says the ship "had many patches of new paint" (see p. 283). It's worth noting, too, that the torpedo struck the starboard side and and the infobox photo shows the ship's port side. I think the date provided by the Navy is correct. If you look closely, the flag is visible below the radar antenna on the radio mast/antenna above the bridge and immediately forward of the ship's funnel/smokestack. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"6,000 pounds of ammunition"?

Surely that ought to read 6,000 TONS of ammunition. 6,000 pounds is three tons, a single mid-sized truck load, or an easy load for two 2.5 ton trucks. A ship carrying that small amount of ammo is not an "ammunition ship", it's a cargo ship with a tiny amount of ammo in a corner of a hold somewhere. 6,000lbs of ammo would last a division three hours, probably not even that. The Sixth Army was getting a couple hundred tons airlifted in every day at Stalingrad, and it was barely enough to keep the defenses up. And that's supplies TOTAL, not just ammo. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and change it, and if anyone else is sure that it's really actually supposed to read "6,000 pounds", they can change it back. But I don't know why such a small; amount would even be worth mentioning. Cargo ships burthens are measured in hundreds of tons, not pounds.

64.223.120.131 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Source

A more recent article with information on the attack:

• Jeffrey St. Clair: Israel’s Attack on the USS Liberty: A Half Century Later, Still No Justice CounterPunch, 8 June 2018.

Deleted by יניב הורון, who didn’t like it. --Babel fish (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy between USS Liberty and Navy E Ribbon articles

The article USS Liberty (AGTR-5) says

"The Liberty's other decorations include the Navy "E" Ribbon..."

and that it was out of service in 1967, decommissioned in 1968, struck in 1970, and sold for scrap in 1973.

The article Navy E Ribbon says it was first established and first awarded in 1976 and only to those "that have won a battle efficiency competition (Battle "E") after July 1, 1974."

Something is clearly wrong here. The Liberty could not have won a competition after 1974 if it was already scraped.

Please correct whichever is wrong.

47.139.41.165 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree there is a discrepancy and I don't know the resolution to it. The Navy E Ribbon article is poorly sourced and may be incorrect. Another possibility is that the ribbon was awarded retroactively. Then again, NavSource Naval History may simply have gotten it wrong. I'll try to do some research but it will probably take a while. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pages 3-9 and 3-10 of SecNavInst 1650.1H (NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AWARDS MANUAL) appear to indicate the Liberty would not have qualified for the Navy "E" Ribbon. There's still more checking to be done though. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the Navy "E" Ribbon as I could find no evidence that it was ever awarded to the Liberty. The ship's entry on the un-official NavSource site has also recently been revised to omit the ribbon.--Mox La Push (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Spy ship designation

Hey y'all, I wanted to check with y'all since I'm not quite familiar with the style guidelines on it, is it standard to label all ships of this classification as "i.e. electronic spy ships"? On the surface, it sounds perhaps a bit subjective or claim-heavy, even if its a generally accepted truth. Does anybody know if this is standard within articles of this type? Thanks! - Navarre0107 (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USS Liberty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The record of that discussion is now at Talk:List of ships named USS Liberty#Requested move 21 February 2024. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)