This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:27, April 29, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
I propose that the title of this article should be changed. The term 'conspiracy theory' is now a very loaded one, often applied by people to stances which they wish to discredit. Removing the word 'conspiracy', and just leaving the title as 'theory' is more in line with WP:NPOV; it does not assert that the theory is correct - many theories clearly are not (indeed, the very term means a conjecture which is unproven). 109.157.172.79 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This conspiracy theory deserves maximum derision and does not deserve any deference. Not my opinion. Fact. The origin is with the same group of treasonous, entitled, right-wing Republican filth who attempted to use this to put Dewey in the White House which literally put this info in a newspaper to be read by anyone. A secret so secret no real historians had access to good resources until the 70's. Ask yourself a question. If the Japanese had attacked and only managed to sink a dingy because nothing else was at anchor, would the foreign policy result have been the same--namely war? If you answer yes, and if you're reasoned, you must, then everything else becomes ridiculous hot air. But, as always, if entitled right-wingers see value in pursuing such slander, then we are doomed to re-hash pure (and as I've just demonstrated, easily demolished) self-serving fabrications for eternity. Finally, any right-wing twit who claims to honestly believe this garbage must then concede that FDR was the greatest naval strategist in history. The carrier was not yet proved ascendant. Indeed, hulls were still wasted during the war building battleships. Only the fact that carriers were the only means of offensive for the U.S. navy that were left after the raid led to the rapid turnaround in fortunes, and strategy in the Pacific. Do you expect any such concessions? Yeah, me neither. 47.39.198.184 (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
