Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:36, 21 January 2013

Books Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Day of Deceit

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Day of Deceit, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.Trekphiler 07:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"The article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached."

Ah yes the new paradigm for truth, consensus. This is the most researched and important book in American History. If Wiki refuses to even acknowledge its existence what does that say for Wiki? NOTHING good that is for sure. Where is Orwell when we need him? Please tell me this "consensus to delete" is just something Orwell forgot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsslm (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What does it say for WP this ridiculous fantasy has survived three years? And what does it say for the caliber of American education when a book so blind to reality is touted as "the most important book in American history"? Did you read Prange's Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History? Have you even heard of it? Have you read Wohlstetter's Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision? Have you even heard of it? I'll wager the answer to both those questions is no. To believe Stinnett's preposterous theory requires either enormous ignorance or willful blindness. TREKphiler 15:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What does it say for you TREKphiler that you suggest an article about a book be deleted because you do not like it? Preposterous or not, the book exists. Four years and the article is still here. Does that make you crazy? Is it driving you nuts to know people want to explore other ideas? Or are you just sad that you have no power? You seem like the kind of person that would attack something like Angels and Demons, even though it states that it is fiction, over some nit-picked detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.175.138 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

because you do not like it"? Because it's a fabrication masquerading as fact. Yes, it bugs me this crap survives. Dan Brown is dishonest in his portrayal of real organizations, so I would never read his stuff, but he isn't pretending it's factual. And why are you so concerned what I think? TREKphiler 20:07 & 20:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Deceit?

Leaving aside the question of why Binksternet cannot comprehend simple matters like pointing out that Stinnett used to work for the Oakland Tribune around the same time Joe Knowland was running that fine newspaper, and that Binksternet authored the article on Joe knowland, why Binksternet believes that fact there is not an obvious conflict of interest in his ovbious personal hatred of Stinnett. How on earth Binksternet believes that a criticism of him--Binksternet--that is in any way a personal criticism of Joe Knowland. Binksternet needs to call 911 right away as he has obviously lost his mind, as have some other of his alias's he uses to edit this Day of Deceit article. Get lost Binksternet, I have zero negative to say about Joe Knowland, and have said zero negative about him. I have said a few negative things about you, and you never answer anything, except to claim some big wild conspiracy to discredit FDR. This article needs an entire rewrite.Dunkmack9 (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question why there's an entire page dedicated to this piece of fiction, let me mention

"denied crucial U.S. military intelligence that tracked Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii."

The resolution did not say Kimmel & Short were denied this, because it didn't exist, but that they were denied Ultra from JN-25 & PURPLE, which did.

"Stinnett demonstrates that Morimura's bulletins were intercepted, decrypted and translated by the Office of Naval Intelligence, and that the intercepts were also sent to Washington, but that Admiral Kimmel did not receive this information.

Stinnett's "demonstration" is filled with examples of intercepts dated before Pearl Harbor, with translation dates as late as 1945. He also completely ignores manpower shortages in U.S. crypto organizations prewar.

Of note, the so-called Kita Messages (aka Bomb Plot messages) were encoded in J-19 and were read in the Fall of 1941, Washington read them then. Neither Kimmel or Short were made aware of these.

"eight provocations aimed at Japan"

Stinnett's thesis twists McCollum's memo, which can as easily be read to mean things to avoid doing to prevent war with Japan.

"Stinnett’s overarching message was that engineering the attack was, at least arguably, a grim necessity."

Like all conspiracy theories, it completely ignores actual actions FDR was taking in the Atlantic, which would bring war with Germany, if successful. Like all conspiracy theories, it also completely ignores a fundamental fact, a fallacy of reasoning so old, the Romans had a name for it: post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after it, therefore because of it). We know the attack led Germany to declare war on the U.S. There is no conceivable way FDR could have known. Stinnett ignores the implications of another of McCollum's memos, which predicts the effects of an attack with such insight, he might as well have been in Hitler's staff meetings. The sole beneficiary of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was Germany, not Britain; McCollum got it right, beforehand. Despite 60 years of research, the conspiracy nuts still can't. Trekphiler 07:11 & 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many pages dedicated to Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. Should those pages be erased? There are also many pages dedicated to Greek, Roman, Christian, and Norse mythology, should they be censored as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.175.138 (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, none of them are purporting to say vampires or Greek & Roman gods are real. This garbage is. And is doing it with lies & distortions of the historical record. TREKphiler 17:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Junk Fiction

I'm inclined to add this:

"===Flaws===

"Stinnett demonstrates ignorance of fundamental issues around cryptanalysis, such as being unable to recognize JN-25 as the "5-num" system. In addition, he presumes unambiguous intent, by drawing attention to things like lines of latitude, as if this somehow clearly demonstrates the location of Japan's targets, neglecting to note they also imply Baja California. Moreover, his thesis twists McCollum's memo, which can as easily be read to mean things to avoid doing to prevent war with Japan, instead presuming intent to provoke Japan. Furthermore, he ignores the contradiction when he quotes an analyst as saying MacArthur got all the information denied Kimmel and Short, yet neglects to mention MacArthur was also caught by surprise. And, like all conspiracy theorists, he omits to mention FDR's efforts in the Atlantic to provoke Germany, which would aid Britain, as well as the salient fact war in the Pacific would not--as, in the event, it did not."

Comment? 07:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's original research as far as I can tell. As it is, it can't stay in at all. It is totally unverified. Don't write your own opinion. Quote or paraphrase prominent published opinions. I'm sorry to say, but it's best if it stays out until something more Wikipedian can be put in to replace it. Misterbailey (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates: POV and Balance

As can be seen in other comments, Stinnett's book is about a very controversial topic. The Attack on Pearl Harbor and Alternative Theories articles, and talk pages are a record of the controversy about Stinnett's claims in this book.

The article reflects essentially none of this and in failing to do so, adopts a point of view in violation of WP policy. It is unbalanced and violates WP policy in that respect as well. ww 01:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

False-flag There is other evidence Pearl Harbor was a false flag operation carried out not just with foreknowledge by the Roosevelt administration, but with their active participation. A Honolulu paper (name?) ran the full story of the lead pilot of the advance squadron who was shot down and treated by medics. He was wearing a Honolulu High valedictorian ring and was in fact a double-agent, according to the news report. Churchill knew of Pearl Harbor before the fact from intelligence intercepts. The US knew of it. Everyone knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened except Hitler it seems. The main wikipedia article on Pearl Harbor doesn't address any of the outstanding questions and is just official history. If you delete this page you delete the only pointer on wikipedia to the truth, not the truth itself but an indication that the full story hasn't been revealed yet. Hypatea 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break! This is full of unsubstantiated, contradictary garbage. Stinnett's own source contraditcts him (Note 8 to Chapter 2, look it up), & Stinnett is so determined to prove a conspiracy that doesn't exist, he can't see it. Trekphiler 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You and everyone else know that that has nothing to do with it, Trekphiler. We're talking about whether this article is written correctly - does it have a plot/thesis section and a SEPARATE review section - and not whether it's difficult to write. You seem to be intent on reverting every possible attempt to address that issue. Please explain, precisely, why you can't allow this article to be written in a sensible, balanced, NPOV way. 69.249.211.251 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"sensible, balanced, NPOV way"? Since every "balanced, NPOV" attempt seems determined to avoid mentioning the proposition Stinnett is advancing is fringe garbage, & every attempt to portray it (as neutrally as possible) as garbage is rejected (per the above nonsense), what do you suggest? I make no claim for personal neutrality on it; if it was up to me, this would be listed as a work of fiction in the lead, because it's about as credible as The Winds of War as historiography. TREKphiler 21:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry this book offends you so much, Admiral. However, phrases like "Stinnett's claim has proven baseless" is clearly NOT summary of the book. I don't know how else we can make it clear to you. Do you understand the difference between summary and criticism? Here: Summary vs. Criticism, since I think we can all acknowledge that you either A) have a personal vendetta against this theory or that B) you fail to grasp the most basic concept of a wikipedia article on a book or other media article. Do you not get that we don't care that it may be a load of bologna? Do you not get that the summary (which says what's in the book, not what you, Admiral, think of it) is different from criticism? Thanks to you draconian rule over this article, and the fact that you have (quite suspiciously, I might add) watched this article like a hawk over the course of the past 7 or so years, quickly reverting any attempts to make it conform more to standard, no one is able to make this article more clear. I myself have not read the book - I have no intention of doing so, as I do not have a particular interest in this area of history - but if I were to come to Misplaced Pages to read a summary of the book, I'd be at a complete loss. Keep your personal vendettas elsewhere, please. 69.249.211.251 (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

♠You're not persuading me to see your side of it by being insulting. This page is garbage & deserves to be ridiculed. The fact it isn't is because NPOV rules, & not my own views.

♠Yes, I've watched it. If you consider an effort to keep out the fringe crap suspicious, I invite you to examine WP:Fringe. The existence of this page is barely inside credible historiography, & it survives because the other option is to have this junk on the Pearl Harbor or Pacific War pages.

♠Do I want a balanced view? Yes. Balanced, however, does not mean Stinnett's thesis is treated as serious historiography, because it isn't. And the kinds of omissions or deletions you seem to want are just as POV in Stinnett's favor as the ones you seem to think are hostile to his view. So where is your "balance"?

♠"'Stinnett's claim has proven baseless'" is clearly NOT summary of the book." Really? So a page on astrology should neglect to mention it has yet to accurately predict anything? Because there's a slim difference. Do you mean to say describing the book should entirely omit the failure of his claims to be borne out by actual evidence? Or that it should omit the flaws in his reasoning?

♠As to my "personal vendettas", notice: none of it is on the page itself. I will not restrain my disgust on the talk page. If you believe this fiction, I can't help you, nor will I refrain from describing this garbage as garbage just because it offends you.

♠So perhaps you'd care to explain what changes you'd like to make, instead of being insulting & making out I'm pushing a POV. (BTW, I've never served in anybody's navy anywhere.) TREKphiler 07:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I support the work here by Trekphiler. My homey Stinnett (we're both Oakland residents) was totally off base when he wrote the book. Despite taking a decade and a half to research and write, it has gaping holes in its logic, it's based on faulty "facts", and it promotes a fallacy in the manner of an author who makes his conclusion first and then seeks only to support the conclusion. First and foremost, Stinnett is a news photographer, not a scholar. He took the famous photo of The Play. True scholars and topic experts take his book apart.

• In 2007's Communicating War: Memory, Media & Military, O Boyd-Barrett's chapter seven, "Positioning the News Audience as Idiot", cites the Stinnett book in making the argument that too many authors today are writing for the least common denominator.
• In the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, James J. Wirtz writes in his book review "Thinking About Thinking" that Stinnett cherry-picked the cables he used in his book, ignoring the ones that did not support it.
• In her Duke University work A Date Which Will Live: Pearl Harbor in American Memory, historian Emily S. Rosenberberg lists Stinnett's book as one which blurs the distinction between popular memory and hard history, between low and high aims, between nostalgic myth and rational professionalism.
• UK lecturer Dr. Antony Best writes about Stinnett's book that "it was flawed both in terms of its research and its historical methodology", and he notes the superior authority of Timothy Wilford's book, Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941; a book which concludes that the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise.
• Associate professor of history John C. Zimmerman puts Stinnett in the context of a long string of historical revisionists who misleadingly seek to show that FDR tried to steer Japan into war: "Pearl Harbor Revisionism: Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit".
• David Kahn wrote a review in the New York Review of Books saying that Stinnett is not a scholar and that he "has come up with the most irrational of the revisionist books."
• Intelligence expert Stephen Budiansky writes in Cryptologia ("Closing the book on Pearl Harbor") that despite the "huge amount of prepublication hype, with plugs from Gore Vidal on the back cover" and more, the book is nevertheless a failure in its mission because of prejudicial research methodology and faulty analysis.
• Historian Justus D. Doenecke has specialized in American non-interventionism and isolationism from 1931 to 1941, including British efforts to get more war involvement out of the Americans; he reviewed Day of Deceit in the Journal of American History, and unreservedly rejected its "scholarship".
• Intelligence expert Philip H. Jacobsen has written several times about the USN code work, and his refutation of Stinnett is thorough in 2000's "A Cryptologic Veteran's Analysis of 'Day of Deceit' –a book review" and 2003's "Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? No!: The story of the U.S. Navy's efforts on JN-25B", both published in Cryptologia. He says Stinnett "misinterprets, misstates, and omits much of the old and some new cryptologic information surrounding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." Jacobsen wrote again in 2004 in Intelligence and National Security: "Radio Silence and Radio Deception: Secrecy Insurance for the Pearl Harbor Strike Force". Here's the abstract:

  Despite solid documentation that the Japanese Strike Force maintained strict radio silence, recent revisionists have seriously misinterpreted new US archival releases in an effort to 'prove' that US Officials acquired advance knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Using twenty-year-old 'remembrances', long dismissed claims that the British also acquired such 'foreknowledge' have been recently resurrected and supplemented with similar Canadian allegations. Instead of code-breaking, it is now is suggested that such 'foreknowledge' was acquired by tracking the Strike Force by direction finder bearings and 'fixes'. However, these revisionist claims are fraught with a wide range of serious errors that render them baseless. Therefore, their allegations of advance knowledge of the attack and suggestions of a deliberate US failure to warn Hawaiian military officials must be completely disregarded as without any foundation whatsoever.

  Jacobsen continues by writing, "The first of these revisionist efforts is the popular but heavily criticized book, Day of Deceit, by Stinnett." After this is the bloodbath—the book is flayed mercilessly.

As a popular book, seemingly well researched, it has many adherents. Few fans can be found among topic experts and scholars, however. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to try to make this as clear as possible, since it seems you still don't understand what I'm getting at here. First, let me start with a question. Does "Stinnett's claim has proven baseless" actually tell you what the content of the book is? No. It doesn't. It tells you the opinion of the reader (whether that be 100% correct or not!). I'm not arguing whether this is true or not; you are probably honestly right, and this book is probably complete drivel. However, I am merely pointing out (again...) that we need to give it a fair and un-criticised section purely on what is written in the book, not what our thoughts are on it. At risk of Godwinising the conversation here, one might look at such a controversial book as Mein Kampf, which at least has a sort of "table of contents" section. I pretty much disagree with a lot of what's probably written in that book (being a jew myself), but I respect the need for information enough that I'll leave the contents section up as a record of what this evil man's book actually says. Unfortunately, the best I can do to help this problem is delete criticism or move it to the criticism section. I cannot provide summary of the book, as I do not have it and have not read it. Once again, I am not arguing that the book is fact, or that your assertions that it is a load of crap are wrong. I am merely arguing that we need to make the article easier to read by placing summary in summary and criticism in criticism. I think your points about the falsity of the book are actually quite good, and I see absolutely no reason NOT to have them in a good, isolated criticism section. Does this make any more sense? I can try to move around what I can, but I'm working from a rather blind perspective here, having not actually read the material in question. As a final note, let me try to respond to some of your more specific points:

♠Do you mean that this page is in existence because your opinion doesn't rule, or am I misreading this? If the former, then sorry, but that's how a wiki works. Your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant (as is mine!); what matters more is that the information is represented so as to provide no particular bias.

♠As far as I've read it (please feel free to disagree/correct me) WP:FRINGE states that fringe theories (flat earth, aliens building the pyramids, politicians having morals) must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. In other words, we shouldn't pretend that an article on aliens building the pyramid is 100% fact and ignore all criticisms of that theory (as I believe your main complaint is/has been with this article?). That does not, however, mean that we should completely delete all references of people having talked about that idea.

♠Once again, I'm not suggesting removal of the criticism; I'm suggesting moving it to the criticism section. You seem to be assuming that I want to delete all references to this book being anything but the gospel truth. That's not what I want!

♠I realize you're using Astrology as an example, but let's run with that. The astrology page says right up in the initial contents bit that it's a pseudoscience. Fair enough. However, it then goes on to have a Principles and Practice section, which is in essence a "summary" section for the "book" of astrology. It follows this with a rather large "scientific appraisal" section, which is like our criticism section. So yes, we should by all means keep comments that Stinnett's work is crap (according to other historians), but we do not need that jumbled in with summary. Make sense?

♠You're entirely welcome to scream at this book as much as you want on the talk page. I've got no opinion of its factuality either way, so I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, you also assume I want summary where summary goes because calling this book fiction "offends me". This is, quite frankly, absurd. The article on Flat Earth, while even more directly provable as bologna than this, contains description of the "theories" of flat earth, separate from criticism of it.

I hope this all has made a little more sense. I'll try to do what I can to the page to move things around soon.69.249.211.251 (typed in IP because I'm not at home right now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.69.13 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

♠"I hope this all has made a little more sense." I think it does. It's unfortunate we didn't start here. I took your previous remarks as personal (if not exactly attacks).

♠"You seem to be assuming that I want to delete all references to this book being anything but the gospel truth. That's not what I want!" My original problem was (& is) the criticism didn't actually get moved, it only got deleted. And past edits (not yours) have seemed to be wanting to whitewash. I'll make you a proposition: use this to rewrite the way you'd like the page, & we can both leave this one alone a few days.

♠"Do you mean that this page is in existence because your opinion doesn't rule" It does, & that was the point. And because my views don't govern, when I do edit this page, I leave my biases at the door. I'm perfectly, thoroughly aware of them. If I've used language a trifle stronger than others think warranted, I welcome correction by cooler heads. So far, nobody's slapped me for it.

♠As to WP:FRINGE, I was taking that, evidently not well-phrased, to also mean presenting it as factual even on a page about the subject is out of bounds. That may fall, instead, under WP:UNDUE. Either way, I remain concerned about "balance" being used as an excuse to introduce POV. That said, I do not mean that's your objective; it has seemed to be in others in the past.

♠The more I think about it, the more I think I should stay away from this page entirely. My own biases may be distorting my perceptions so much, I can't give any editor a truly fair deal. That isn't what I want. TREKphiler 22:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(HALP I'M INDENTED!) I'd rather you not stay away from pages like this. You clearly know a lot more than I do about WW2 history, so I'm not asking you to never contribute (as if it were my position to do so in the first place). I am merely asking that we, as you say, "leave biases at the door". 69.249.211.251 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Junk Fiction 2

For Jeffq, let me say, until you can demonstrate the diversion of U.S. effort to the PTO benefitted Britain, don't put the {{fact}} tag back on. Trekphiler 09:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Things to avoid doing?

"McCollum's memo .. can as easily be read to mean things to avoid doing to prevent war with Japan"??

There's no way anyone could arrive at that conclusion if they actually read the memo. The text of the memo is included in the Misplaced Pages article http://en.wikipedia.org/McCollum_memo and the relevant section reads

" ...Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:

   * A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
   * B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
   * C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
   * D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
   * E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
   * F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
   * G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
   * H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. ..."

Not only are these points "suggested"; not only is the predicted outcome "so much the better"; but the 8-point plan was followed, at least in its broad outline if not to the letter. There *was* military consultation between the British, Dutch and Americans in Singapore, to plan an anti-Japanese strategy. These consultations resulted in co-ordinated reconnaissance flights of American, British and Dutch aircraft on Japanese movements in the South China Sea (http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/DEI_oil.html). There *was* a trade embargo (in abrogation of the United States - Japanese Commerce and Navigation Treaty), and freezing of Japanese assets. The main strength of the U.S. fleet *was* kept in the vicinity of the Hawaiian islands. The Dutch government (by mid 1940 in exile in London) not only opposed Japanese demands for economic concessions as required by the 8 point plan, it also joined in the embargo, as did the British. Since Japan had been dependent on the US for 80% of its oil, and the Dutch East Indies was the only other possible source of supply, it's difficult to see what options the Japanese had. Martin Gradwell (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall McCollum's memo is written from the point of view of deterrence. Note also this isn't the whole text; from what Stinnett (no supporter of the "no conspiracy" POV) reproduced, I was unconvinced war was being advocated. Deterring or intimidating Japan, yes. Recall, also, Japan was at war in China & the U.S. was trying her damndest to aid China without getting into a war; the "overt act" by Japan would be an excuse to give full military aid without violating the Neutrality Act. Nothing like as clear as your making out. Trekphiler (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the whole text? I've ony quoted the most relevant part of the memo, but it certainly looks to me like the transcript at the McCollum_memo page is the whole of it. Comparison of that transcript with the facsimile does not reveal any omissions. I based my opinion on that whole text, not just on the part I quoted.

Deterrence? In the whole memo, I see no evidence for that. On the contrary, the stance throughout is that war with Japan is seen as inevitable, and the only question is who should start it. ".. prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any help to Germany and Italy" "A prompt and early declaration of war .. would be most effective in bringing about the early collapse of Japan". "Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely strengthen Britain's position against Germany and Italy". How could McCollum make it any clearer that he is all for an immediate declaration of war with Japan, leading ultimately to that country's elimination?

But he acknowledges that the political climate is not yet ripe for such a declaration, so he recommends eight actions each of which is a preparation for war, so that the US will be ready when the time comes (and the Japanese, being starved of oil and other necessary materials because of points G and H, will not be ready); and "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better". That last remark shows that he sees very clearly that his proposed actions are provocative. He is actively goading the Japanese, in the hope that they will make the first overtly aggressive action. Goading is the exact diametrical opposite of deterrence. The only note of caution is in the addendum by Captain Knox. Maybe Knox is less enthusiastic about the prospect of war than McCollum is, but in the end he concurs with the plan outlined in the memo. Martin Gradwell (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, there's no need to have a debate about the merits. Reflect prominent published opinions on the matter (those that are specifically relevant to Day of Deceit's argument) and leave it at that. If Day of Deceit contains specific factual errors, they can be mentioned if cited, but we shouldn't be giving our own interpretations. Misterbailey (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

♠Since the issues has arisen, yet again, I repeat: the presumption of desire for war in McCollum's memo remains unproven IMO.

♠"actively goading the Japanese, in the hope that they will make the first overtly aggressive action." With the hope of being able to provide aid to China, yes. Not so the U.S. will be at war with Japan, which he knows is only of benefit to Germany (so does Hitler, BTW), & has expressly said so. Stinnett denies or ignores this.

♠"How could McCollum make it any clearer that he is all for an immediate declaration of war with Japan, leading ultimately to that country's elimination?" Pay attention. He does not say "attack Japan" or "declare war on Japan" or "be at war with Japan". As noted, "elimination" is eliminate the threat, not widen the conflict. He knows perfectly well if the U.S. is at war with Japan, the sole beneficiary is Germany. Stinnett denies or ignores this, too, because it's inconvenient to his main proposition. TREKphiler 01:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall

I have no particular opinion on the controversy this article touches on, but I came to it interested in what it had to say, and left it no wiser. The article in unclear as to what is actually being said. I assume that the book it describes (is it an explicitly fictional book as the above comment suggests?) is supposed to be evidence in favor of US Govt. foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. If so, the article should surely say so upfront. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.135.61 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing, yes FDR knew war was coming, everybody knew that, we isued war warings for crying out lound! That is not an alert or a stand by that means be in the trenches with weapons loaded. Most commanders chose to ignore them thinking that we would always be able to locate the Japanese before they attacked.--jowns

Secret Memo Section

According to govtrack.us, National Defense Authorization Act 2000 never became law (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-1401). There's no mention of anything regarding pearl harbor in the summary. Can anyone provide a citation that would substantiate this section?

"dispute these claims and call his claims 'totally false'"

The final sentence says "Frederic Borch and Daniel Martinez also dispute these claims and call his claims 'totally false' " This seems like it might be a bit repetative. Also, it's a bit unclear as to whether they are referring to Stinnet or Ogg's claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's Stinnett; they talk about Ogg in a just prior passage but the phrase in question refers to the book at hand.

I had some trouble in dealing with the Ogg material. He appears first on Toland's book Infamy as "Seaman Z', but his identity was rapidly determined. Some sources claim he is related by marriage to Kimmel. I think most of this material is better dealt with in the "debate" article but some reviewers were pretty negative about the way he appears in Stinnett's book. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the book stinks

but having a "one-shot, one-kill" footnoted "why the book is wrong" article is a useful tool to me every time some knucklehead tries telling me I need to read it and Stinnet solved the conspiracy. With that in mind, please don't delete the article. After all the "hollow Earth theory" is easily disproven, and it still has its page.WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That is the best & most concise argument I've seen to keep this fiction. Well said. And with that view, I actually do agree. TREKphiler 03:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to remain exactly for the reason that people should be able to find information about the book quickly without having to read it, research it, or rely on reviews which have not been peer-reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.247.9.211 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thesis is a Review

Shouldn't the "thesis" section be, well, um, the thesis? As of right now, it looks like those that wrote this article couldn't resist writing a review where the plot is supposed to go. 69.249.211.251 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Positive reviews from the book's own dust jacket

Actually, Binksternet, I stated that they were from the dustjacket and gave the source and original publication date on four of them. You respond by threatening to cut me off from editing anything on WP. Finding the original newspaper publication date was quite a feat of google excellence; not internet blog reprint dates, I gave the date the paper was dated. You crapped on the whole WP thing by removing them, as someone with a paid subscription to news articles (I could recommend the one I use)could have easily found them as I did with that date. And, sad to say, but your interpretation of Richard Bernstein's quote is quite insightful, as you have confused Rupert Corwell's quote in The London Independent about "smoking gun" with a Bernstein's quote, and added a Gore Vidal comment to the jacket that does not exist--as if you were quoting gospel chapter and verse. You have combined Corwells "no smoking gun" into Bernsteins comment I quoted-- which was not a 'glowing' review as much as an indictment of your pap on this subject-- that questions nothing that might rock the boat. So you were sort of right on the Bernstein quote, but obviously did not read the actual review I referenced. Bernstein blogged on this, also. How dare you threaten to ex-communicate me from wiki because I did outstanding research and actually found these quote publication dates (hard copy) and added them to the very obviously pro-FDR and anti-Stinnett article. I am glad I did not quote the entire quotes that I did find through those dates, as it would have been a lot of typing and you would have just crapped on that, too. Right? Dunkmack9 (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted for the second time a positive-slanted addition to the article. Dunkmack9 added some glowing reviews of the book, the reviews taken straight from the book itself. Such reviews are not reliable, as the author or publisher may have taken some of these over the phone, or made them up, or misrepresented them. For instance, one of the reviews is this:

• Richard Bernstein, The New York Times Book Review wrote "It is difficult, after reading this copiously documented book, not to wonder about previously unchallenged assumptions about Pearl Harbor."

What we can see in Bernstein's December 15, 1999, review—"'Day of Deceit': On Dec. 7, Did We Know We Knew?"—is that he was carefully dismissive of Stinnett's research. He wrote, "Stinnett has produced no 'smoking guns' on the subject, contrary to Gore Vidal's excited blurb on the dust jacket." I find it quite appalling that Bernstein is now misrepresented on the very same dust jacket. Bernstein continues: "Stinnett's main and most radical argument about Roosevelt does not overcome previous substantial and contrary historical work on the approach of the war. On less global subjects, too, this book will probably elicit skeptical responses from other historians who will properly argue that Stinnett has failed to take account of less radical explanations for the data he has uncovered." Bernstein says the reader should approach the book with "a strong dose of skepticism."

Of the other quotes, most of them I was unable to find in news archives. If they exist, the treatment of Bernstein, changing a critical piece to a positive spin, should warn us that the other writers are likely misrepresented as well. The book's own dust jacket cannot be the source of positive reviews added to this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted an "added review" for the same reasons. It is a PR blurb only. It is cited to a review but doesn't given an objective portion of the review it claims to represent. Kierzek (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversion. The quote, though, is verifiable. Michael D. Hull did indeed review the book positively. Slotted in between the very negative criticism, though, does not suit Hull's praise. Hull is not so much a scholar as a history writer with a doctorate degree, one of the editors of WWII History Magazine and a former contributor to Army Magazine. It does him no great service to point out that he swallowed whole the premise of the book, but it is true, and I think putting him in as a positive reviewer is supportable. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My main point was that what was put in the article was too short of a PR blurb to tell what Mr. Hull's point(s) really were; so it was written and presented in a poor fashion. I am glad you were able to track down the full review. If you want to write something and place it in a good spot, Binksternet, that is your call since you found the review in full, etc.Kierzek (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles