Talk:Day of Deceit

message: Judith Greer and Rear Admiral Richard E. Young are cited in this article, but they don't seem to fit the requirement of WP:RS for reliable, published sources.
===Judith Greer===
WP:RS requires that source be reliable as well as published.  I have attempted to establish the reliability of Judith Greer but have not been able to do so.  Is there a list of publications for which Wikipedians can assume that if they publish an article by someone, then that someone is reliable, at least in the context of that article?  in other words, does everything Salon publishes get a free pass on the WP:RS test?  Greer's article is full of appeals to authority and biased language.  It also contains factual errors (thanks to Justin Raimondo who explained the following at http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062201.html: "She airily dismisses Stinnett's uncovering of '129 intercept reports that indicate that the Japanese didn't maintain radio silence during the approach to Hawaii. (None of them are reproduced in the book.)' ...[C]heck out pages 46, 49-51, and 57..."
===Rear Admiral Richard E. Young===
Several of the footnotes on this article refer to a PDF written by this Rear Admiral and published on the site of a "Now dissolved" venture called "Art Barn" for which Google shows a (current as of this comment) total of four pages, one of which is the PDF itself.
Dscotese (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources

message: Several of the footnotes on this article refer to a PDF written by this Rear Admiral and published on the site of a "Now dissolved" venture called "Art Barn" for which Google shows a (current as of this comment) total of four pages, one of which is the PDF itself.
Dscotese (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rear Admiral Richard E. Young]]

message: I have added a "" 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 Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, 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)
replies: text: "The article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached."
Is it odd to have a Wiki entry for a book that is not actually about the book in general, but is just a bad-tempered critique of it? I'm not an experienced Wiki editor; all I can say is that I believe when people go to Wiki to, say, look up a book, they expect an even-handed overview, with perhaps a "Criticism" section devoted to any controversy. I've read the book, and found that Stinnett's research adds much new, well-cited information to the little-understood radio intelligence (and radio intelligence personnel) role in the run up to Pearl Harbor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.49.132 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 any time you're ready, Uhura  15:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 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 any time you're ready, Uhura  20:07 & 20:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Day of Deceit]]

message: 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.[1]
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 any time you're ready, Uhura  17:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Deceit?

message: 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)
thread_title: Junk Fiction

message: For Jeffq, let me say, until you can demonstrate the diversion of U.S. effort to the PTO benefitted Britain, don't put the  tag back on.  Trekphiler 09:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Junk Fiction 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overall 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 any time you're ready, Uhura  03:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, the book stinks 

message: 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)
thread_title: Thesis is a Review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Positive reviews from the book's own dust jacket 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Day of Deceit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722001303/http://www.usncva.org/books/book-10.html to http://www.usncva.org/books/book-10.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "confused FDR's desire for an incident which might serve as a catalyst for war" I don't have Wohlstetter in front of me, but my reading of FDR's aim isn't so strong. As I read it, he wanted an excuse for a blockade, which he could use to aid China, without going as far as actual fighting, which was (still) highly unpopular in public opinion. Am I misreading?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warmongering FDR?