Talk:USS Liberty incident

Let's talk conspiracies

Does anyone have any serious reports on this incident that seriously disproves the NSA reports on this? If not, don't post. If so, your posts'll be taken on a case by case basis. Until someone finds something real, stop fucking with this article. *Asterisk* (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a collaborative wiki. The article doesn't belong to you & you have no editorial authority over it. If you want to write something that other people don't interfere with, do it as an essay rather than an article. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not all contributions are created equal. So far, I'm the only guy who's gone into detail on what happened on June 8th, 1967, not to mention sourced it. All you've done is contribute unsourced speculation that my sourced facts completely contradict. *Asterisk* (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no, you haven't "gone into detail" — instead, you have dropped some context-free text on the page, accompanied by your own disjointed, sloppily proofread commentary. You have also removed the Rusk quote, and the mention of an eyewitness account, the Ennes book. That makes it look like you seem eager to tell one side of the story and suppress the other. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If just being an eyewitness account meant anything, this would be a reliable 9-11 resource. I posted the history of what happened on that day by linking to accounts that were actually reliable in a summarized form. All you did was add back in the conspiracy support because you can't stand the idea that I'm right and your wrong. Just what the hell have you sourced from this that I haven't disproved? What have you added of any substance that hasn't been contradicted by more reliable accounts? Absolutely nothing, and now you've locked the page in an effort to keep this stupid conspiracy alive. You could've at least attempted to provide something real or critically analyze what's been presented to you, but that'd require actual work.

I hope your happy. You've made this site a dumber place from your contributions here. *Asterisk* (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"You've made this site a dumber place from your contributions here." Can you maybe stop making comments like this as if you're the boss of the site? You've scarcely been here a week. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Really?

I rather expect Rational Wiki to adopt a healthy skeptical approach to things, rather than, well, let's be honest, taking the Alex Jones approach. This one seems horribly out of place. If we adopted the same standards of evidence as are applied on this page, you could write pages arguing for the Truthers or that Obama was born in Kenya. Very strange page to find on this site. 128.164.108.58 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to add any sort of evidence that supports against an intentional attack. "I would not like it being true" is neither rational nor skeptical. 131.111.27.50 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This page has issues

Two major issues with this page. The first is that it presents the material in a way that is systematically unbalanced and frankly misleading. The second is that the tone is, to put it mildly, something you'd expect a Karen to write while they were frothing over anti-vaccination facebook "studies".

I have corrected one of the most egregious examples of this: A.Jay Cristol was a federal judge. He wasn't a federal "judge". The man has been a Senate confirmed member of the Southern District of Florida for almost three decades. The stuff about his Korean War experience is just wrong, and it omits the fact the guy served in the JAG for two decades. It's also weird that his research is buried in a hidden table down the bottom. I mean, the guy has had multiple academic books published on this matter by the Naval War College.

I'll leave this note up for a while so the OP has fair warning. But unless it is significantly improved, I'm afraid this page is going to have to be completely reworked as to not damage the wider credibility of the site. ^{— Unsigned, by: 194.223.72.49 / talk / contribs}