Talk:USS Stark incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Please clarify this page. The discussion is about an Iraqi attack but the lead-in is about an Iranian attack. Iraqi or Iranian? (I believe the correct answer is Iraqi).

jwjensen356@sbcglobal.net

75.17.119.140 (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legalities[edit]

It is stated that "Legally the American warship was allowed to attack any hostile aircraft within twenty miles". What is the legal basis for this claim? International law, US law, US rules of engagement (which have no legal authority) or Iraqi law?124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is US rules of engagement - which have no legal authority, even in the USA, and often contradict international law.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Rear Admiral Grant Sharp, USN Investigating Officer "The [Rules of Engagement](ROE) that were in existence on 17 May 1987 were sufficient to enable STARK to properly warn the Iraqi aircraft in a timely manner of the presence of a U.S. warship; and if the warning was not heeded, the ROE were sufficient to enable STARK to defend herself against hostile intent and imminent danger without absorbing the first hit." from http://www.navy.mi.th/judge/PDF/6%20ROE%20Case%20Studies[1].pdf --Senra (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above link is broken but I found the same quotation in an e-book. I have now replaced the sentence beginning "Legally ..." and added a reference to the e-book --Senra (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile Aircraft[edit]

The article states that the American warship was allowed to attack hostile aircraft. However the Iraqi forces were not considered hostile to America at the time of the incident. The attack occured during the context of the Iran-Iraq war. The Stark was not a combatant in that conflict. Her mission was to protect American-flagged ships, primarily oil tankers, from Iranian gunboats. See http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a051787ussstark. Iraq quickly apologized for the attack. As written, the article gives the false impression that Iraq was hostile to the US in 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.89.77.22 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile aircraft does not refer to any country's forces, but to the aircraft. Hostile is a category of identification, determined by the then ship's AIMS Mk XII (12) ATC-RBS, Identification, Friend or Foe system. It is doctrine based, on the aircraft's speed, direction, RF emissions, and other factors. The nationality of an hostile (or unknown) aircraft might be unknown; bliss(?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS Stark 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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 23:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

The central part of this article, which is the description of the attack, is almost completely unsourced. This is always a problem, but even more so here because this is a WP:BLP issue regarding the still-living officers and crew of Stark. If anyone can point me to a good source, I can take a stab at a re-write. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


the Falcon 50 seems to me a total bull. Mirage F.1 were already armed with Exocet, and frankly speaking what are the 'reliable sources' to state the Falcon theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm starting to think the same thing. At the very least we should present the Mirage and Falcon as two possibilities, instead of stating the Falcon as fact. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this today as well. There's no supporting evidence, outside of the previously-linked article (that didn't work) that the aircraft was anything but a F1 Mirage. The official USN report clearly states that it was a F1 that attacked the USS Stark, and I'm going to believe that over an article that was published with no proof by an author with no credentials. The entire thing reeks of conspiracy theorists, and this website should be about presented facts, not an unsupported theory from one person. Kain292 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So was it a Mirage F1 or a Falcon 50? The page makes no sense. AdAstra2009 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the #Discussion in progress section below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need to balance detail[edit]

WP:Summary style level of detail re the missile attack incident needs balancing between the USS Stark (FFG-31) and the USS Stark incident articles, or perhaps the latter article should be merged into the former. Please discuss at Talk:USS Stark (FFG-31)#Need to balance detail. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in progress[edit]

There is a discussion currently in progress which relates to this incident at Talk:USS Stark (FFG-31)#Removal of content re Dassault Falcon 50. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miles or Nautical miles[edit]

This article states distances in (international) miles, but Naval forces and aircraft use nautical miles so which one is it? The convert template uses international miles. Avi8tor (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi victory?[edit]

Why does the infobox for this article describe this incident as an "Iraqi victory?" The United States and Iraq were not in conflict at this time (and had never been previously), and this was apparently an unauthorized action taken by the Iraqi pilot, acting solely on his own initiative. If one treats this mistake as a "victory," then by the same logic the USS Liberty incident should be listed as an Israeli victory, and the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 should be called an American victory. Jrt989 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2024[edit]

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 a month and a half of listing, there is nothing resembling an agreement to move, and I don't see strong policy reasons to favour the support or oppose camps in what is ultimately a descriptive title.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USS Stark incident → Attack on the USS Stark – (the proposed title was changed from USS Stark attack) – The ship was attacked, incident implies tension or threats. MountainDew20 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I don't think that 'incident' implies only tension or threats, It is instructive to look at Gulf of Tonkin incident - a pretty major event involving shootings and torpedoes. In fact, three's an entire category on Wikipedia called Category:Combat_incidents. "Incident" is the right word here not only because that is the way it is referred to in sources, but because there is much more to the event than the attack itself - the 'aftermath' section is longer than the attack section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4fbb:d000:f109:3801:adf6:a0c8 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Three cited sources about this incident have "attack" in their headlines and only one of them has "incident". The Gulf of Tonkin incident does not seem analogous. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a more murky encounter and the number of casualties was very small. The U.S. was apparently doing "covert amphibious operations close to North Vietnamese territorial waters" at the time, and a U.S. ship fired the first shots in the encounter. There were no US casualties and only "slight damage" to one ship and one airplane on the US side. There also wasn't a large number of casualties on the North Vietnamese side (four killed and six wounded, not worse than a minor jungle infantry encounter). Also, the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" has come to be a very dominant and well accepted name for that incident. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: We should be hardly be making use of vague terminology where the sources do not even support it by means if prevalence. Aside from the lack of descriptiveness of "incident", it sounds more like a political kerfuffle than an attack on a warship, and it is telling that there is little to no titular use of the word in the current sources. In all, its use appears wholly unmerited. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Oppose per the arguments made at Liberty and above, incident is probably the best stable description even if it is pretty vague. FortunateSons (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons, can you clarify what you mean by per the arguments made at Liberty? -- asilvering (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a reference to the discussion at Talk:USS Liberty incident#Requested move 12 February 2024. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Worth noting that per WP:NCE, and specifically WP:NCWWW, "incident" is treated as synonymous with event, i.e. it is the complete and abject opposite of a description, and tantamount to saying "USS Stark event". This is common sense, but the naming convention makes it explicit, noting that the guidelines apply to Wikipedia article titles for events and incidents, and that the job of descriptive titles is to describe: When the incident happened. Where the incident happened. [and] What happened. Just calling the event an "incident" is not describing what happened; it is failing to do so, and can only really be justified where "incident" is somehow the overwhelming common name for an event. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Stark_incident&oldid=1215507946"