Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

RfC: Is this article too long and should it follow a "For vs. Against" outline for clarity?

A small group of users refuse to allow this enormous page to be trimmed down to a proper size. WP:ARTICLE SIZE says that a page over 32 KB is too big and this one is more than double that at 78 KB. They also refuse to allow for this confusing "Debate" article to be organized in a For-vs-Against outline. They claim that the very existence of this page is acknowledgement enough from Wikipedia of what they refer to as a ridiculous "Conspiracy Theory" put forth by "Nuts and Loons" that don't even merit any serious comment. Another user and I attempting to improve the page have encountered constant WP:UNCIVIL behavior as well as no sign of any intentions of showing WP:GOODFAITH. I was going to request WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION, but I figured I'd start here and give them the benefit of the doubt that with a little outside input they might be a bit more reasonable. (fingers crossed)

I believe this page needs:

• The opening paragraph cut down to just being informative of what the article is about with all the text pushing one side or the other moved elsewhere.
• The size of the article should be reduced by at least 30% and it should be organized into a format that makes it clear to the reader when he or she is reading info meant to be For or Against "Advanced-knowledge".
• The "Further Reading" section that lists almost 30 books should be reduced to about a fourth of its current size.

Thanks for your input! BillyTFried (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

---

"attempting to improve the page have encountered constant WP:UNCIVIL behavior " Attempting to rewrite the page to support a fringe theory, he means. Deleting sources that don't support the fringe theory. Deleting sources for no cause. Hiding comments offering a semblance of balance with a claim of "shortening" the page. Using page length as an excuse to remove anything that doesn't support the fringe theory. And misrepresenting the position of critics of the page's underlying thesis. The supporters of an "advance knowledge" theory demand it be a "conspiracy", because little else will explain how so many highly placed people could do something so contrary to their express objectives. A willful disregard any evidence except that which supports such a view, in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, is not rational; it is an act of faith. And "constant WP:UNCIVIL behavior"? Only if said user is one of those who refuses to accept the theory of a prearranged attack is fiction, which, given the recent edits, appears to be so. Notice the above posts are strident & increasingly hostile. Notice they presume a POV by other editors not supported by evidence (in particular "my government can do no wrong"). Notice the "BS & more BS" "outline", which has an objective which can scarcely be described as designed to improve the article, despite claims. Notice also any criticism of said outline is "whining", which can hardly be called helpful in improving the article, either. It appears the requesting editor is attempting to highjack the page to support a POV. Perhaps an AfD request is in order, instead? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As requested above, please post links showing me doing EXACTLY what you accuse me of or admit you are lying and apologize for it.

All I did was change the heading titles, and comment out the enormous "Further Reading" section in order to immediately shrink the page down, but still allowing for the MOST IMPORTANT of books to be easily restored since they are not even deleted. My last delete was just a reaction to your constant reverts of my work. The same goes for the enormous first paragraph where I COMMENTED OUT all text that was attempting to make a case (FOR EITHER SIDE), so as to reduce the excessive content but still allow for it to be easily moved to a more relevant section later.

Also:

• "Notice also any criticism of said outline is "whining""
• "Y'know, between getting peeved at people & not reading the footnotes, you've managed to be singularly unhelpful with this 'outline"."

That is not constructive criticism of my outline. It is exactly what I called it. Whining and attacking me instead of the outline I created. So, WHAT exactly is your criticism of my outline? Where did you type that? Did I miss it somewhere? Where did you state what you felt was wrong with it or why it should not be used?

• "And "constant WP:UNCIVIL behavior"? Only if said user is one of those who refuses to accept the theory of a prearranged attack is fiction"

You can't really be serious about that statement? You think it's OK to be uncivil with fellow editors if they don't agree with your personal views? Do you think that is really an acceptable position to take here on Wikipedia? So if I'm an Atheist, then by your logic it's OK for me to be WP:UNCIVIL to anyone who "who refuses to accept the theory that" a magic man in the sky is is fiction???

So, let's see where I "Deleted sources for no cause" and "Removed anything that doesn't support the fringe theory" and "Attempted to rewrite the page to support a fringe theory". I'm waiting.

BillyTFried (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: the early cap on page size was related to slow internet service expected for a percentage of readers. Your commenting out of text did not reduce the page load time, in fact, it added a very small amount of text to make the page load time a bit longer. Commenting text out is at best a temporary fix. Binksternet (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit peeved, are we?

Have a look at your "outline". Show me what part of it in the "BS" is a constructive effort to improve. Exactly. (You might also show me how a tagging a quote for who said it reveals an inability to read, since the source of the quote was in the footnote provided. Of course, his position was contrary to the "advance knowledge is true" thesis...)

Show me what part of deleting the article's sources, such as this, was justified. "Commenting it out" is a de facto removal.

Show me how taking out sourced quotes for no apparent reason, such as this, was justified. "Commenting it out" is a de facto removal. I also notice it was reverted.

Show me how deleting references to "controversy", claiming it's POV, isn't a de facto push for the opposite POV. (I will stand correction, here. But not from you.)

my "constant reverts"? I've reverted you, I think, once. Maybe twice. Funny definition of "constant".

"Controversy and claims of coverup" You deny changing it? You deny it's controversial? You deny there are claims of coverup? You deny making such a change, at minimum, leaves an impression of taking sides? (Oh, wait, that's an attack, isn't it? More "constant incivility". My bad.)

"You can't really be serious about that statement? You think it's OK to be uncivil with fellow editors if they don't agree with your personal views? " Not my personal views. With an unwillingness to even examine evidence contrary to a preconceived view. Notice I have, so far, refrained from calling you a loon, despite your increasingly strident remarks. Free to be incivil? If you choose. I can place no compulsion on you (much as I might wish to, in that case or this one). I am also free to. What hazard may ensue is not for you to decide, contrary to what you evidently believe.

And I suppose the "Sasquatch, Canada" is a civil remark? Presumably nobody living north of 49 is entitled to an opinion on this? That leave out Brits & Aussies, too? Or just the ones who disagree with you?

I owe you an apology? Hell will freeze over first. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:31, 08:36, 08:41, 08:45, & 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC) (P.S. If you think "hamfisted" was an attack, I invite you to imagine what I didn't say.)

I ALREADY SAID, the very REASON I COMMENTED THEM OUT instead of DELETING THEM (what other reason do you suspect?) was so the improperly put together opening paragraph could have the slanted material from BOTH SIDES moved to an appropriate spot (which I was not sure of and hoped one of you guys would have the consideration to take care of), and so a FEW of the 28 books listed in the FURTHER READING (not the Article Source list as you keep erroneously claiming) could be easily restored. And just WHERE did I ever claim ANYTHING was POV???

Here? (→Controversy and claims of coverup: The word "Controversy" doesn't belong here, it belongs in the opening paragraph which is way too Pro-Conspiracy, that I'll be "boldly" revamping momentarily.)

And as far as reverting goes, you may want to read up on Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

And are you really telling me you can't comprehend the fact that the TEXT in my outline is FILLER only meant to suggest what should go where, with a bit of humor thrown in (BS-vs-Voive-o-Reason) The humor was really lost on you? Really? Man you can really only come up with Straw Man argument after Straw man Argument... eh?

And yes, you do owe me an apology, your links did NOT show ANY of what you claimed I did regardless of your "De-facto" nonsensical arguments. Face it. You lied. Says a lot.BillyTFried (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"You lied. Says a lot." What it says is the difference between what's in the edit & what's available for reading. Hidden material, like it or not, may as well have been deleted, so I don't draw any distinction. (Oh, wait, that's an attack, too, isn't it?)

Humor? Or a Straw Man? Perhaps you should examine your confidence in your ability to be funny. (Oh, wait, that's an attack, too, isn't it?)

The 3RR? I count 2. You seem to have been peeved over being reverted for WIP on "commented out" material; as noted, I draw no distinction with deletion, there. (Oh, wait, that's an attack, too, isn't it?) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting for one concrete reason why the article should remain in the chaotic and confusing states it is in now instead of in a format such as the one DT or I have suggested.

Here:

1. Evidence codes had been cracked already

Conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories.

• One example from the voice of reason why the above is inaccurate
• Another example from the voice of reason why the above is inaccurate
• Final example from the voice of reason why the above is inaccurate

Happy? Maybe sombody can actually make some CONSTRUCTIVE input now? BillyTFried (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact I am haviong a hard to massaging things into this format myself because of how confusing the article is and that it seems that many of the Pro-Conspiracy sections don't really have a counter-arguments to break into "Response" bullets. A person who truly was against this "Consiracy Theory" should actually have a problem with THAT. BillyTFried (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories."

Are you so enamoured of your own sense of humor you have to continue to resort to this? And did anyone suggest no changes were appropriate? You're so busy demeaning the low intellectual quality of other editors here, & calling comments "rants" & "lies", maybe you didn't notice? (Oh, wait, that's an attack, isn't it?)

Your efforts to "correct" the problems left a distinct impression (to me; I speak for nobody else) of changes designed to push a POV. So does adding only one page of the McCollum memo, rather than all of it. I can only suggest opening the whole page & moving en bloc, rather than section editing, would have avoided that impression. I will stand by my comments as calling it as I saw it & make no excuses. I can't read your mind.

If you do have access to McCollum's memoranda (since "Sasquatch, Canada" isn't terribly close to the Library of Congress), let me request (constructively?) you add the one re Germany; as noted, he makes the case war with Japan is not of benefit to Britain. Hitler makes essentially the same argument, IIRC in Hitler Directs His War (Trevor-Roper? Liddell Hart?). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the whole thing, straight from the Library of Google: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCollum/index.html?q=McCollum/index.html "The memo, scanned below, detailed an 8 step plan to provoke Japan into attacking the United States. President Roosevelt, over the course of 1941, implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the McCollum memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked. The public was told that it was a complete surprise, an "intelligence failure", and America entered World War Two."

“ If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully

prepared to accept the threat of war. -- A. H. McCollum

”

BillyTFried (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read it. It's the other one I'm interested in. The one where McCollum demonstrates he knows perfectly well provoking Japan is stupid? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that version; http://www.google.com/search?q=McCollum+memo But it sounds like you have a good counter point to add to the article. BillyTFried (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• From RfC. Well, this is a constuctive debate :-/. You lied! No, you lied! You are a potty head!
  If the article has major problems, why not write an alternative version on a draft subpage. Alternative = balanced & shortened version, using all the sources with appropriate weight, Eg Draft.
  And an understanding of what the RfC from univolved editors is for might be useful - why would others wade in when neither of you can resist replying to every single point the other makes, even in the RfC section?Yobmod (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to RfC

My first piece of advice is that both Trekphiler and BillyTFried cease editing this article and (especially) its talk page for one week; helpful essays might be WP:Truce, WP:No angry mastodons, and WP:Beware of the tigers. As to the actual content of the dispute, I would say that a reorganization would solve some of the length problem. As it stands, the article is too focused around the truth: WP:V states "verifiability, not truth." The evidence for advance knowledge is laid out in too much detail: we (as editors) don't care whether it is true or not, we just want a useful summary of the main points so a reader will have some idea what this particular conspiracy theory is about. Also, as the purpose of this sort of article is to note the existence of this sort of conspiracy theory, it does not require a full, point by point rebuttal. The preferred method of organizing this type of article is to have separate pro and con sections; this structure also cuts down on repetition. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this?

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Contents

1 Support

1.1 Preferable to invasion

1.2 Speedy end of war saved lives

1.3 Part of "total war"

1.4 Japan's leaders refused to surrender

2 Opposition

2.1 Fundamentally Immoral

2.2 The Bombings as War Crimes

2.3 State terrorism

2.4 Militarily unnecessary

2.5 Racism and dehumanization

3 Footnotes

4 Further reading

4.1 Debates over the bombings

4.2 External links

BillyTFried (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with RJC with regard to the recent personal commentary here. This subject has been contentious from 8.12.41, there is a great deal of it in the talk archives here, and the invective isn't helpful for the purpose of improving the article which is why we're here editing.

As for the question of length and disorganization, the article -- sadly -- reflects the chaotic state of confusion over the various flavors of allegation that someone (somehow) knew about the attack before it happened. There is no prospect of having a neat brief article which actually reflects that reality.

Furthermore, there has developed a kind of careful editing in and around this article because those who believe in this or that alternative theory are willing to dive in to be certain this article reflects adequately on their idea or what happened. So large changes are likely cause very considerable editing tussles. All editors, BTF included, are cautioned on this point, lest the reaction leave the article even longer and more disorganized than it currently is. ww (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments RJC and WW. And WW thanks for the warning. Well put. I admit, as a relatively new user to Wikipedia, even touching a page with so many references is a bit scary, and the reaction you talk about is understandable, especially for those who put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into finding their sources and carefully choosing their words, which they probably feel are nearly perfect, like a crystal. I will note that Billy had a similar reaction (to the kind expressed here towards him for deleting material on this article) when I deleted a substantial amount of writing I considered in violation of Wikipedia rules on another site. Fortunately, we found a way to work towards a compromise on at least one paragraph, which I think has remained in place over a week, and that successful compromise was nice, despite my having much higher goals for the page.

So back to the matter at hand: I agree with ww's assertion that there are numerous perspectives found throughout the piece not falling into a simple for or against--at least from what I have read. How, about this as an approach: Can we identify, as best we can, distinctly different perspectives (you may note I spoke before of this as A, B, C, etc.) and then associate certain arguments, facts, evidence, lines or reasoning, etc. with each of the distinct perspectives. I do understand they frequently bleed into one another, a problem I mentioned above. But I'd rather we try than to just let leave it with them all jumbled as they appear to be now.

If this identification is difficult, one approach to is to instead focus on each of the key "experts", e.g. Stimson (including of course those who say there was not advanced knowledge), and flesh out each of their key arguments and perspectives with regard to this topic. My hope with this approach is that if we can not identify lines of reasoning that are internally self-consistent and reasonably distinct that are shared between experts, usually individual experts will have strived for self-consistency and/or admitted to problems with facts that don't quite fit their hypotheses.

Let me know what you think, and if so, we can set out the various A, B, C & D, whether they be arguments or experts.

BTW, ww, did you seem my response above re Sokal Hoax?--David Tornheim (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed your comments and replied above. Your hope of inding an expert authority for this or that issue, citing it and moving on the to the next controversy is hopeless, I think. Stimson, for instance, isn't an expert -- he was charged by Congress late in the War to run an investigation, which he farmed out to Clausen. His report ot congress left out much due to the crypto security issues, of which it appears he was not fully au courant. Clausen himself concluded that Marshall had lied in every investigation, as had the crypto folks who were handling the 14-part message as it arrived and was decrypted and translated. Under those circumstances, the best account is not one from a high ranking participant, but from someone who has, with due allowance for the fog of after action accounts and futzed memories, assembled a more complete account. The standard problem for historians, made more difficult in this instance by highly involved emotions from some, and by a plenitude of contemporaneous documentation, some of which is still not been made available (probably). We are in a position, not of sovign or settling anything, but of recounting the current state of the various accounts -- in this article of the alternative accounts alleging something different than sloppiness, confusion, and dropped balls combined with a skillful Japanese performance. All at a time when Naval combat doctrine was on the cusp of a considerable change from the past half century or more (certainly since Mahan). There are multiple shifting perspectives in such situations and many participants will say or have said things which observers 70 years on may understand wrongly. This article should present the controverted evidence for various underlying accounts o the the undoubted events, noting credibility problems as they arise and leave it at that. We are not settling anything here, just describing a dog's breakfast of conjecture in brilliant prose, with pointers ot more information elsewhere as helpful. That's why I think BTF's trimming of the further reading section (woolly as it was) was ill-advised. ww (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Stinnett, not Stimpson. I totally agree that Stimpson is not an expert, but an actor in the story. My apologies for your energy spent questioning that. Experts would be Stinnett, Toland and people like him. In my mind trained historians, ideally with some training in higher education and/or advanced degree(s), graduate degrees, Ph.D's or even professors in liberal arts, familiarity with historic research and even other published works in the field would be the most reliable experts to look at first. However, I would not exclude entirely as experts, people who may not have had historic training, but have immersed themselves in the subject matter and are intimately familiar with the details. They would come next. Then, those who had first hand eye-witness accounts and wrote essays or books about their experiences. I may have left some people out, but that's sort of the ranking of priority I had in mind. Stimpson would be toward the end of the list, as an eye witness, but certainly as a "neutral" or disinterested expert or historian. I don't know how much he wrote or if he even came up with a cogent argument about the amount of advanced knowledge. Edwin Layton would be another eye-witness of a similar sort rather than an "expert". He did seem to have a theory/hypothesis from the link I found on him.

This is the kind of writing I really don't care for:

Furthermore, one position discussed in author Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit suggests a memorandum prepared by Office of Naval Intelligence Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum was central to U.S. policy in the immediate pre-war period. The memo suggests only a direct attack on U.S. interests would sway the American public (or Congress) to favor direct involvement in the European war, specifically in support of the British. An attack by Japan would not, could not, do that, as history would prove.

Although the memo was passed to Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox, two of Roosevelt's military advisors, on October 7, 1940, there is no evidence available to suggest Roosevelt ever saw it, nor any he did not. Moreover, although Anderson and Knox offered eight specific plans to aggrieve the Japanese Empire and added, "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better," of the eight "plans" (actions to be taken) offered in the memo only one was ever implemented in any fashion, and there is considerable doubt the memo was the inspiration. Nonetheless, as shown in Day of Deceit[36] Stinnett claims all action items were implemented.

First we have to take on faith that Stinnett believed some memo from McCollum was of great importance (why he might have thought this particular memo was important is not explained), [why for example, do we not have a direct quote from Stinnet, so say?] and then we have a list of disparate hypotheses and theories with little evidence to support them, for why we apparently should be convinced that Stinnett's faith in the memo was unwarranted, when we aren't even convinced Stinnett thought this in the first place or, if so, why he thought so. This is neither a good story nor good writing. It doesn't convince me of anything, but that some people disagree and I'm not sure exactly what about--something about the importance or non-importance of said memo. This only suggests to me that all parties agree it has some importance or they wouldn't be wasting my time arguing about it.

This is a good case where I'd like to see Stinnett's view presented in its best most authentic and believable light and then the counter-arguments separately handled in their best light. Without that, it just sounds like hearsay.

Japanese Intelligence

The section following it I found just as annoying--Japanese Intelligence. My immediate question, never answered, was why Japanese intelligence has any bearing on whether the United States was aware of a potential attack. Why am I hearing about various Japanese spies on the island. One is a double agent. So what? Am I expected to believe that if he is a double agent, the Japanese would tell him about the impending attack? And that as a source for the British he would pass that on to them. If he did, would we know? If so, how? I don't even know what this spy was assigned to observe or do--maybe he was watching a bank, for all I know and knew squat about the military. Wait, now I'm re-reading, at the end of paragraph one after discussing the spies sex life, it says, "Prang demonstrates that Popov's claim to have provided warning is overblown." Let me guess, warning to the allies about an attack on Pearl Harbor. Why does it not spell this out in the first sentence, i.e. that one of the claims that the allies knew of the attack beforehand was this particular double-agent had passed on information (somehow related to the "notorious questionnaire" [what questionnaire? why was it notorious?]) and the evidence that said information was passed on. And then later argue why the evidence presented that the spy had given warning is unreliable, should be disregarded, etc. The organization of this section is needlessly confusing, written by people who know the subject too well and assume everyone else knows it as well as they do. The audience is people who don't know, not people who do. END OF LECTURE... Good Night and Good Luck! --David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- The reason the covering state of Japanese intelligence is important is due to claims from from conspiracy folks that messages between them and Tokyo included information about the upcoming Attack. Breaking the low level codes would have exposed the planning on that theory. IN some sense this article is a collection of somewhat unrelated claims/speculation/theory and discussion thereof. One of the reasons the article it has a disjointed quality. Looks like I managed to forget to sign this. But I recognize my typos. ww (talk)

Do you think that is clear from reading the article? And if not, do you think something should be done about it? BillyTFried (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it is clear. I think something should be done about it. Look forward to ww's response on that. WW: I did response re post-modernism. Blinsternet archived the discussion. If you do choose to respond, please let me know where to find your response. Best wishes.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you bring up post-modernism one more time I'm gonna go spray paint Chris Daly Sucks all over Harding Theater! And BTW, Jap is a racial slur Mr. PC. BillyTFried (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you saw the article. Now you know what I look like--I think you live in the 'hood too--isn't your pic in Alamo Square? I told the reporter I thought it was balanced. By the way, I testified at a hearing today at City Hall--this, one of my few non-political appearances ("The Personal Is Political" notwithstanding), and, ironically, I only had one minute to speak. I was very close to joking, "Only one minute? I'll try not to break down in tears over my meager time or accuse the two commissioners who didn't show up today of being 'predators'."Nevius, C.W. (2008-08-10). "Zoo hearing brings out the predator in Daly". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-08-09. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)Speaking of political: Wikipedia founder launches political site McCarthy, Caroline (2006-07-06). "Wikipedia founder launches political site". Cnet. Retrieved 2008-08-14. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Please don't give trouble about being off topic. I know. Besides, he started it.--David Tornheim (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I want to help your cause here...

...(because I don't think that anyone knew beforehand, and I respect FDR), but hey, its Wikipedia, one of the greatest sites ever thought up, so I'll help you guys a bit: someone here might like this link. Good luck, the_ed17 17:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"anyone" includes the Japanese who, without question, indeed knew. On carriers ... very old news to many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.93.212 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, who knows, maybe it will help someone....Jeez, see WP:AGF. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

baffling phrase re Clausen

This was recently removed as too opaque. Actually, I read it as follows: given the classified nature of much of Clausen's report, what became public at the time (in Stimson's account of it), it was understandable that it (ie, Clausen's investigation) appeared especialy scattershot and incompetent." This seems a fair reading and accounts for Roberta W's otherwise well respected account of the attack and the reasons it was a surprise. And so an important aspect of the development of opinon amongst academic, dispassionate (sort of), observers with regard to the reasons for the surprise at Pearl. If it can be reworded to be more clear, I think it ought to go back in. Comment? ww (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, given that several other "investigations" had in camera sessions where classified documents were sought and in some cases provided (hence those investigations' TOP SECRET sections), or specific invocation of "state secrets" masking many documents - a firmer grasp of Clausen's brief might be helpful to some. For instance, what motivation(s) brought Clausen, a minor player in the Army Board, to be appointed by Stimson, for this one-man (recall similar in some ways to Clarke on Marshall's authority) exploration?

Outline Request

I don't know where best to put this reference. I wrote a substantial reply on the Attack on Pearl Harbor site about the lack of organization and structure to the arguments for both sides (surprise and no surprise--not "conspiracy" please!) that I would like to see in this article, with my recommendations on how to improve it. I'd love to see this article improved. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The reply he is talking about (I think?) : the_ed17 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Outline of Major Arguments for and Against Prior Knowledge

(includes room for refutation.)

Outline of arguments there was no fore-knowledge:

a) Radar was underutilized. There were few sites & staffing & control arrangements were inadequate. Training was still underway in its use.

b) FDR and Marshall would never let this happen. Contrary to FDR's objectives & actions prior to the attack. Absolutely contrary to Marshall's character.

c) The navy in Hawaii was too valuable to lose. Contrary to U.S. interests (loss of BBs, at millions of dollars each, & trained crews; so loss of fleet units expected to be necessary to fight a major war). Unnecessary, besides; warning of attack (given foreknowledge) would work just as well; interception of incoming attack ditto.

d) Witness X, Y, Z testified under penalty of perjury: “I did not know ahead of time.” Safford, Taylor, Layton, Wikinson, et al. all did. IIRC, so did Marshall.

e) Commissions 1-10 all found extensive incompetence, underestimation, misapprehension of Japanese capabilities & intentions, excessive secrecy about crypto, lack of manpower...

f) Japanese Code were all broken broken before 7/12/41; not reliably or extensively read. In part due to lack of manpower in crypto/translation staffs (the main reason J-19, in which the notorious "bomb plot" message was sent, wasn't read). Also, the Japanese hid the key messages in lower-grade J-19, while higher-grade (& hence higher attention) Purple was read by U.S. "Broken" doesn't equate to "read reliably". Nor does it mean the manpower to read (i.e, break & translate) every example of the thousands of incoming messages was available. It wasn't, even in cyphers that could be read (reliably)

Some fact-checking here: Ogg interview, Safford, and Layton (from Safford) have over 700 people assigned to "crypto" work - look at breadkdown for percent on DIP/IJN and translation of same; or just how many "translators" were assigned to, say, Station CAST in October, November, and early December 1941 (was it more than two?) and how many were needed and why that number, and (b) Dates for Kita Messages - started when, received for decoding when, decoded when, distributed when, and discussed when and by whom? It might be found that they were the subject of several discussions pre-Pearl Harbor. Same exercise for the PA-K2, and not J-19, message on deployment of barrage balloons at Pearl Harbor? [And why was J-19 not used - i.e., what happened?]

fa) Allow me to add that even READING the entire Japanese radio traffic would probably have availed little. The operation was planned in Japan with relatively ample time, and highly classified, so why should the Japanse have transmitted ANYTHING about it via radio? thestor (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Was the Operational Order complete? Was anything not known when the some 700+ copies were printed - like, say the date to sortie from Hittokapu Wan? Might want to check the post-war interrogations of the surviving IJN members - one in particular answers your "why should the Japanese have transmitted ANYTHING ..." And yes, orders were transmitted.

g) Confusion. Wohlstetter called it "noise". So many possible targets, so little analysis...

h) Inability to assemble the information. For lack of manpower. Also, almost no analysis (assembly) actually done, for reasons of extreme secrecy as to the source (broken cyphers). Rufe Taylor's famous map was a start; it should have been replicated in Stark's & Marshall's office & center of a daily briefing every time new intel came in. Nothing like that was done. And intercepts were handled raw by SOs.

Might want to check just who maintained which charts and for what purpose. What was the Dutch naval officer shown when he visited ONI twice in early Decemeber 1941, and the purpose was? More such expositions are widely known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.125 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

i) Inability for army & navy to work together. In Hawaii, certainly. In crypto, there was surprisingly good co-ordination. Except the "work sharing" arrangement meant neither really had a complete picture (viz lack of analysis).

Counter argument to the above:

a) But the code was broken.

b) FDR and Marshall are not the nice men we thought they were.

Counter-argument: This requires them to act contrary to their characters, & contrary to the express objectives they'd set for the U.S., & willingness to believe they'd sacrifice U.S. assets without commensurate gain. Where's the gain to the U.S.?

c) Speculation.

d) Witness A, B, and C, said the opposite.

Counter-argument: No of these witnesses are credible.

e) Commissions 1-5 did not have the evidence later found: _____________

Counter-argument: No credible evidence contrary.

Those who argue for a surprise use this evidence:

A) FDR wanted a war and needed an excuse.

Counter-argument: FDR wanted to aid Britain. War with Japan does not aid Britain. It directly aids Nazi Germany, however (& Hitler, & McCollum, both saw this. even tho conspiracy theorists can't, despite 50yrs of evidence...)

B) Witness Z said, “We pushed Japan into a corner. Japan would not stand for a military build up in Hawaii. The attack was provoked by [the Phillipines].”

Counter-argument: The reason for attacking Pearl Harbor had more to do with IJN/IJA internal politics than FDR or U.S. objectives.

C) Key documents continue to be suppressed.

Counter-argument: Prove it. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

SRH-149, a primary source document to some, can be found at the following URL: www.fas.org/irp/nsa/safford.pdf. Cover page has " ... approved for release by NSA ..." - when was that again? On page 14, "NSA25X1" refers to what - anything there "suppressed?"

D) Document Q states, “Carrier L was at position P.”

Counter-argument: No U.S./Brit doc exists, now within the public domain, on the location of K.B. between 26 Nov & 7 Dec. All claims to contrary remain conjecture.

Counter-argument to the above:

a) FDR would NEVER do that. Contrary to U.S. interests, to his political judgment, & to his express objective, aiding Britain.

b) Witness Z is not credible. [Need evidence for this.]

c) We can not infer anything from documents we have not seen.

d) It was only one piece of the complex puzzle, not sufficient in and of itself.

written by David Tornheim (talk)

Not sure why ed21 took the outline out of the article. Although the outline is clearly not great or even referenced at all right now, I thought it would be a good seed and with time the cacophonous voices would "anneal " (see Information annealing if you don't know the term) to something a little better organized and easier for lay people to read than the current extremely detailed article that makes me wonder where exactly it is going and start to lose direction, feel lost and bored, since no map is provided. Well, maybe I ask too much. For now, I'll try injecting pieces of the outline into the article and see if they stick. It gives those who claim these views are undeniably true to put their money where their mouth is and defend those views WITH SOURCES in the ARTICLE, rather than bantering about here with tits-for-tat that get us no closer to any truth than where we started. Right?--David Tornheim (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

DT, Keep in mind here that WP has limited scope. It is NOT attempting to find truth (save accidentally in the pursuit of other goals) but rather to document the state of knowledge about <something>. That's why original research is banned, why citations are required for factual statements (though many require them for just about everything else in an excess of zeal), and NPOV is obligatory. In this case, there are so many religiously held views that the prospect of truth emerging, or being noticed if it does, seems dim amongst the din.

Even the outline above, attempting to merely summarize that din, is off balance with regard to the cypher issues and that which flowed from them. for instance, it confuses "break" with "read", takes a position re Marshall's unwillingness to lie under oath (and others' to for that matter), fails to clearly distinguish between the content handled on various Japanese cypher circuits and makes assumptions about Japanese policy re those circuits and possible cryptanalysis ...

All wrong, or misleading (implicitly or explicitly); which makes reliance on the outline as an organizational guide difficult, for there will be problems as a result.

This part of WP is likely to reflect, for a very long time, the conflicting nature of interpretations by those who are interested. They have diverse opinions, proceeding from (or influenced by) diverse positions on questions of politics, policy, the nature of history (there are at least the "great man", "big movement", and here, "conspiratorial shadows", theories), and so on and on.

Informational annealing, like the operation of the invisible hand to the benefit of all, can really only apply in an environment where human biases and impulses are not significant. In this case, I think they swamp the annealing skiff. ww (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

ww, in its defense, let me say some of the apparent bias seems to be from lost indent when pasted from here; it's not a true copy.

That said, I think it serves a useful purpose, if only when adding info, a kind of checklist. It occurs to me a page reorganization along the lines of the outline (if not with these headers) might be useful for the noobs to this subject, which include DT (as I understand it).

As for info annealing, from my read, it sounds very like WP: biases tend to get stamped out as consensus grows. I suspect all that's really at issue here is process. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Trekphiler. I agree completely with your response. Regarding ww's statement, "Even the outline above, attempting to merely summarize that din, is off balance with regard to the cypher issues and that which flowed from them.." I don't contest this. I never claimed I knew what the content of the outline is or should be--I only suggested an organization. That's for those who know the issues to determine (and argue about, if necessary). Again, this is just a catalyst for the major views and supporting information to be organized and presented. It's not in the article and I think it or something like it should be, so I agree with Trekphiler there.

To the statement, "Informational annealing, like the operation of the invisible hand to the benefit of all, can really only apply in an environment where human biases and impulses are not significant. In this case, I think they swamp the annealing skiff." Well, to be honest, my hunch is that you are right, especially when you look at the discussion pages on controversial topics like this or say the Ralph Nader page! (That's why I went to Pearl Harbor in the first place--I wanted to see how disputes were handled.) HOWEVER, I believe, like Trekphiler says, that Wikipedia is founded on the concept that the annealing process is supposed to work, so, despite my shared skepticism, I'm willing to do my best to work within that framework, giving it a good faith effort towards success, despite concerns similar to yours. In other words, I'll try to see if it is possible to create a product that is superior to the cacaphony of voices (din) we observe now. And I'll do what I can to make my edits work towards something superior rather than inferior, despite my similar skepticism. Of course, I'm new... I know vetrans of any field often are quite cynical, and not without reason...

Also, let me point out that some would say that the "din" is itself beautiful, perhaps even more beautiful than something structured and organized--consider some contemporary art that appears almost like white noise or includes the splattering of paint! There are times I agree with that--it is the diversity that makes things interesting, not something like Newton's laws of physics that turns us into to nothing but machines. Nature seems to have elements both of structure and chaos. I think it is the chaos that permits us free will. Despite scientists attempts to come up with a formula that describes and predicts everything, they eventually concluded that a certain level of chaos is inescapable. Also, I think that is one of the reasons we invest so much energy in writing and discussing here, even if many, like both of you, have more or less given up on the possibility of a consensus--I think we enjoy becoming part of the "din", part of the "one". Also, I see a strong connection between structure and totalitarianism/control. One person I met told me that ALL SYSTEMS and ALL STRUCTURE is bad. He said if you read Ullyses by James Joyce you will agree. I have been meaning to read that for years since hearing that! As I often believe, it is not that structure is better or chaos is better (for describing the truth), I think both have their place (or beauty?), or both are simultaneously true, despite the fact that both can't be simultaneously true--it's our logic that is somehow mistaken. (It's the same problem with objectivity/subjectivity--logically it makes little sense for both to be simultaneously true, but both have solid footing and to me seem at all times inescapable.)--David Tornheim (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have something, there, in joining the battle. I think there is a certain enjoyment in it, but there's also a primordial need to (as George Carlin might have said) "protect our stuff". I have no confidence of convincing the other side; nevertheless, I refuse to abandon the ignorant to the siren call of conspiracy, with its simplicity, when the chaotic & inelegant world of science (& let the "hard scientists" scoff at my counting history a science if they will) may deter them. I stand (if I may so immodestly say) with Isaac Asimov, who stood a defender of science against attacks from the simplicity of faith & willful ignorance, on everything from religion (or creationism) to astrology. Here I stand, here I shall remain. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I wish I could recall who said it first.)

Martin Luther is credited with having said, "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen." (Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.). --Tenmei (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

<--I've had that credited here, & I don't think that's it. I recall it as a fairly precise quote. Thanks for playing "Name that Quote". TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BillyTFried's Recent Revisions

Billy: Thanks for your interest in this page. I didn't have the patience to read it all--after the 10 Commissions, it sounded like a bunch of jibberish to me!  :-) {I'm sorry I couldn't help that.). It looks like some of your topic headings will help me find a couple of sections I can wade through that are devoted to topics I actually would like to learn more about other than JN-32x or whatever the code was called. Did it change your mind at all after reading all of the article? What do you think about my request for an outline to organize the material better? Can you suggest some section(s) that are "scrutable" and interesting, key to getting a sense of whatever exactly the two factions are arguing about? I did read your page on the guy from Atlantic city--nice work.--David Tornheim (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You may find the little (growing) list on my talk page I posted in response to a msg from TREKphiler a bit more interesting. Or my lone complaint on this page that I wrote entirely myself out of sheer astonishment that it did not already exist on Wikipedia, only days before the Olympic begin. Talk:Beijing 2008 Olympic bid BillyTFried (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on looking at anything you do on your talk page, BillyTFried. I'm looking here on the article and I've concluded that your hiding of sections isn't a helpful edit. Your edit comment that worthwhile references and sources should be clickable ignores the fantastic body of work that is available at brick and mortar libraries but is yet to be found online. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I know reading comprehension is tough for some on Wikipedia, even for some of the enlightened pseudo-intellectual wannabe philosophers, but I do think it was pretty obvious I wasn't talking to you with regards to my TalkPage. If you disagree, please suggest how I can edit my original message to make it easier for folks like you to understand. Wikipedia has standards. And this article meets just about none. And the foremost one that's a problem here is Wikipedia:Article size. I know it may be hard to fight the urge to list out every book in your own personal little library, but you're going to have to suck it up and make the effort. The winds of change have arrived buddy. And if you guys attempt any "Ganging Up" tactics to monopolize this very poorly written article (did one of you actually say the words "Intellectual Tidiness" at one point?) BWHahahahaha... oh sorry... I will have NO PROBLEM, making requests for other editors to get involved including Admins or making full out requests for arbitration. I have found them to be useful resources for dealing with situations like this. A LITTLE ADVICE: Go back and read your lovely article again, front to back and then ask yourself if you think it would stand up to such scrutiny. BillyTFried (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Outline

If the one DT has suggested will be too tough to implement, than I suggest something like this:

1. Evidence codes had been cracked already Conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories. One example from the voice of reason why the above is total BS Another example from the voice of reason why the above is total BS Final example from the voice of reason why the above is total BS 2. Claims that the Japanese had warned the US Conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories. One example from the voice of reason why the above is total BS Another example from the voice of reason why the above is total BS Final example from the voice of reason why the above is total BS 3. Bigwigs said things that show prior knowledge Conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories and more conspiracy theories. One example from the voice of reason why the above is total BS Another example from the voice of reason why the above is total BS Final example from the voice of reason why the above is total BS

DT's outline may not be perfect and the same goes for mine, but the article absolutely requires reorganization.

BillyTFried (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, between getting peeved at people & not reading the footnotes, you've managed to be singularly unhelpful with this "outline". TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Unhelpful with this outline? Umm... Earth to Trekphiler, I WROTE THE OUTLINE. What more pampering were you hoping for? And please don't waste my time with more unconstructive whining. Thanks.BillyTFried (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice your signature. Your contributions to the page, & this one, have, thus far, amounted to little beyond sophisticated vandalism. I see slim improvement. I do see rewriting with the apparent aim of masking the existence of a conspiracy theory behind a NPOV claim. Your defense of the conspiracy here with claims of conspiracy (MK Ultra? Top security is hardly "conspiracy".) is pseudo-intellectual garbage & lousy reasoning. You were the one whining about biting. And Admins? Bring 'em on. I have a strong suspicion I won't be the one getting locked out. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:33 & 05:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course the guy who goes around calling anyone who disagrees with his "MY GOV CAN DO NO WRONG" stance a Nut or Loon has nothing to worry about when it comes to rule enforcement. Ha! That's almost as good as the "Intellectual Tidiness" line! BillyTFried (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My government can do no wrong? It's not even "my government", let alone "no wrong"; you're presuming you know who I am, where I live, & where I stand, which is about the level of intellectual rigor your conspiracy defense rises to. It's the inability to recognize or accept reality, & the willful disregard for evidence, I criticize. Your inability to distinguish the difference is also about what I'd expect, considering your hamfisted efforts to "improve" the article by removing anything remotely suggesting the conspiracy theorists aren't serious historiographers. You really do need to learn to read. And so far, I haven't called anyone here a nut or a loon. Yet. So I really don't have anything to worry about. You, on the other hand, have been going out of your way to remove sources just because you can't get them online, change content without reason, & rewrite in favor of a POV that ignores the facts. Maybe you ought to worry. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, you're from Sasquatch, Canada. Good for you. That doesn't make any of your ealier rant any less WP:UNCIVIL:

• This is an INSULT: gain the respect of the conspiracy nuts.
• This is not CIVIL: the conspiracy claims... deserve ridicule.
• This is not ASSUMING GOOD FAITH: I refuse to dignify them with serious comment.
• This is just LAUGHABLE: Elvis & Franco are both still dead.

BillyTFried (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• "hamfisted efforts to "improve" the article by removing anything remotely suggesting the conspiracy theorists aren't serious historiographers'"

Either post a link to an example of me doing what you accuse me of or cease making such false accusations ASAP. BillyTFried (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"ealier rant" Make a note (since you prefer to ignore my reply). I characterize nobody on WP (so far) in an uncivil manner. (So far, you've gone out of your way to take offense, & be offensive.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the issue of article size. It said something to the effect, "in the past it was a hard & fast rule" to stay under 32K. Now it's not. It says that 400K can be a more serious problem--the article isn't even close to that. This is article is on a complex subject, and much of the material is or was secret, and I think it, therefore, warrants a longer article. I do still think the organization could be somewhat improved with a section with a summary of what is to follow. I have to agree with Trek that deleting the further reading was pretty close to vandalism--I actually saved a copy of it yesterday when I noticed it had disappeared. I found some exceptionally good materials there. I would have reverted it too if I had found the edit that deleted it. Enjoy your dispute--other than what I have said here, I think I'll stay out of the recent turmoil and see what the dispute resolvers (DR) have to say when they arrive. Will they announce their presence?

Here's what I suggest for the DR people in general, if this is not already being done. I suggest when they come in they declare/notice something like this:

• A notice for D.R. was filed on __________ date by __________ with regard to this article.
• I am responding to said notice.
• I come as an impartial witness/observer/dispute resolver
• I have not previously edited this page or the discussion page.
• This page is not on my watchlist.
• If true: Until today, I was not familiar with the page.
• I do/do not consider myself knowledgeable on the topic.
• In in the article and history, I plan to look for: (whichever are true)
  • Balance / NPOV
  • Tone
  • Allegations of Vandalism
  • Edit warring
  • Evidence / Footnotes
• I am reviewing these things in the discussion: (whichever are true)
  • Behavior (Uncivil, etc.)
  • Tone
  • Ability to work together

Just an idea. It would give us a better sense of the purpose of a visit...

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you so enamoured of your own sense of humor you have to continue to resort to this? And did anyone suggest no changes were appropriate? (Oh, wait, that's an attack, isn't it?) 09:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)